M00Q792 


BALTIMORE. 


DATE  DUE 

*• 


M" 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  jrom 
Duke  University  Libraries 


t 


https://archive.org/details/mentalmoralhered02wood 


MENTAL  AND  MORAL 


HEREDITY  IN  ROYALTY 


A STATISTICAL  STUD  T IN 
HIST  OR  T AND  PSYCHOLOGY 


BY 

FREDERICK  ADAMS  WOODS,  M.  D. 

Lecturer  in  the  Biological  Department  of  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology ; 
Late  Instructor  in  Histology  and  Embryology  in  the  Harvard  Medical  School 


With  One  Hundred  and  Four  Portraits 


NEW  YORK 

HENRY  HOLT  AND  COMPANY 

1906 


3^3 

Ia 0 9, &/>) 


Copyright,  1906 

By  Henry  Holt  and  Company 

All  rights  reserved 


Stanbope  {press 


PREFACE 


In  the  present  work  I hope  to  contribute  something 
to  our  knowledge  of  the  science  of  history.  Perhaps 
there  is  not  at  present  a science  of  history  to  contribute 
to.  Some  have  contended  that  the  complicated  story  of 
civilized  man  can  never  be  subjected  to  exact  analysis; 
and  Froude  has  said  in  his  essay,  “The  Science  of  His- 
tory,” “It  often  seems  to  me  as  if  history  was  like  a 
child’s  box  of  letters  with  which  we  can  spell  any  word 
we  please.  We  have  only  to  pick  out  such  letters  as  we 
want,  arrange  them  as  we  like,  and  say  nothing  about 
those  wThich  do  not  suit  our  purpose.” 

But  the  point  I wish  to  make  at  the  start  is  this,  that 
there  is  a great  difference  between  argument  and  proof. 
Are  such  methods  as  have  been  largely  pursued  in  the 
past  by  philosophers  bent  on  discovering  causation  in 
history,  worthy  of  the  name  of  science?  Have  their 
systems  been  such  as  to  eliminate  a personal  bias? 
Have  they  been  impartial,  cold,  and  statistical?  Have 
they  first  sought  to  collect  all  instances  bearing  upon  the 
point  under  discussion,  and  then  based  their  conclusions 
on  mathematical  results  ? I think  those  familiar  with  the 
writings  of  Buckle,  Montesquieu,  Carlyle,  Hegel,  Guizot, 
and  other  philosophers  of  history,  will  agree  that  no  such 
scientific  methods  were  pursued.  Until  history  has  been 
subjected  to  statistical  analysis,  let  us  withhold  our 
opinion  as  to  the  possibility  of  arriving  at  positive  con- 
clusions in  this  most  difficult  and  perplexing  field  of 
inquiry. 

iii 


IV 


Preface 


History  is  really  but  a branch  of  biology.  Some  of 
the  most  difficult  problems  in  evolution  — namely,  hered- 
ity, variation,  and  the  effects  of  environment  — are 
to-day  just  beginning  to  be  dealt  with  by  mathematical 
methods,  and  the  results  already  warrant  the  hope  that 
we  may  by  carefully  collecting  facts,  and  not  by  mere 
theorizing  and  essay-writing,  arrive  at  conclusions  which 
all  must  agree  upon.  In  biology  such  mathematical 
measurements  have  been  given  the  name  of  “ Biometrics,” 
and  the  study  “Biometry.” 

Let  us  apply  to  the  best  of  our  abilities  such  methods 
to  history,  realizing  full  well  that  we  cannot  in  our  first 
steps  reduce  our  results  to  the  seventh  decimal  place; 
but  we  shall  at  least  approach  more  nearly  to  the  truth 
than  if  we  forever  argue. 

In  the  present  research  I trust  I have  not  picked  out  the 
letters  which  suit  my  purpose  and  said  nothing  about  those 
which  do  not.  On  the  contrary,  I have  severely  labored 
to  first  include  all  the  facts  in  a systematic  way;  and  then 
to  analyze  these  facts  by  several  different  methods,  in- 
cluding the  mathematical,  based  on  recent  formulae. 

In  the  appendix  I have  given  the  exact  references,  to 
titles,  volumes,  and  pages.  These  authorities  are  the 
basis  of  the  gradings  for  individuals  used  throughout  the 
work.  I have  attempted  to  locate  each  person  in  one  of 
the  biographical  dictionaries,  first,  those  in  the  English 
language,  or,  if  necessary,  in  the  larger  foreign  lexicons. 
Hence,  if  no  biographical  authority  is  attached  to  the  per- 
son’s bracketed  number,  we  may  conclude  that  he  was 
not  considered  important  enough  to  be  given  a separate 
article.  It  has  been  my  wish  to  rely  on  at  least  three 
authorities,  though  in  some  cases,  only  one  or  two  of  the 
many  works  which  I have  utilized,  give  any  direct  state- 


Preface 


v 


ments  on  the  desired  points.  Every  book  mentioned 
in  my  bibliography  printed  in  the  appendix  has  been 
thoroughly  exhausted  to  furnish  information  relative  to 
the  mental  and  moral  traits  of  these  royal  personages, 
except  that  after  getting  for  one  personality,  three  or 
four  references,  which  did  not  conflict,  I then  stopped. 
Furthermore,  these  are  all  the  sources  that  have  been 
utilized,  so  my  work  is  only  a report  of  what  exists  in 
the  printed  records  now  brought  together  to  serve  the 
purpose  of  science.  In  the  appendix  one  can  see  that 
some  of  the  bracketed  numbers  are  missing.  This 
means  that  the  persons  bearing  these  numbers  are  in  the 
genealogies,  but  that  nothing,  or  almost  nothing,  has 
been  found  describing  their  psychic  traits.  If  only  one 
authority  is  mentioned,  it  means,  unless  an  error  has  been 
made,  that  this  alone  contains  the  desired  information. 

In  this  way  I place  the  basis  of  the  whole  work  in  the 
hands  of  my  readers,  so  that  any  one  doubting  the  truth 
of  my  assertions  can  easily  take  a few  characters  at  ran- 
dom and  look  them  up. 

Although  the  class  considered  in  this  book  includes  but 
one  small  portion  of  mankind,  it  is  very  probable  that 
many  of  these  personages  have  been  of  great  importance 
in  their  generation  in  turning  the  course  of  human  af- 
fairs, and  especially  so  in  some  countries  and  during 
certain  periods.  No  attempt  has  been  made  to  prove 
this  point  regarding  the  relative  importance  of  the  kings 
to  the  history  of  the  countries  over  which  they  ruled, 
except  in  the  case  of  Portugal.  In  the  chapter  dealing 
with  this  country  parallel  columns  suggest  the  conclusions 
to  be  drawn  in  this  special  instance.  I am  at  present 
measuring  these  factors  more  exactly  in  the  histories  of 
all  European  dominions.  In  so  far  as  these  men  and 


VI 


Preface 


women  have  been  important  and  have  influenced  the 
times  in  which  they  lived,  the  present  work  may  lay  claim 
to  be  a contribution  to  history. 

However,  the  primary  object  of  the  research,  the  results 
of  which  lie  within  these  pages,  is  to  determine  the  pro- 
portionate share  taken  by  heredity  in  the  formation  of 
mental  and  moral  life. 

A score  of  problems,  like  the  negro  question,  self- 
government  for  the  Filipinos,  and  practical  philan- 
thropy, await  the  guiding  finger  of  science  on  this  very 
cardinal  point.  Are  our  natures  predetermined;  or  will 
fine  and  fit  surroundings,  just  laws,  hygiene,  education, 
or,  in  other  words,  equality  of  opportunity,  bring  about 
the  long  looked  for  Utopia  ? John  Graham  Brooks  says,* 
“I  have  rarely  heard  a debate  between  one  who  thought 
himself  an  individualist  and  one  who  claimed  to  be  a 
socialist  that  did  not,  at  bottom,  turn  upon  the  inquiry 
about  the  relative  importance  of  man’s  character  and  that 
of  his  surroundings.” 


From  August,  1902,  to  April,  1903,  I published  in  the 
Popular  Science  Monthly  a series  of  nine  articles  under 
the  title  “Mental  and  Moral  Heredity  in  Royalty.”  In 
the  present  work  much  has  been  added,  certain  correc- 
tions made,  and  correlation  coefficients  worked  out  by 
higher  mathematical  methods.  Chapter  XVII,  “The 
Correlation  between  Mental  and  Moral  Qualities,”  ap- 
peared in  Popular  Science  Monthly  for  October,  1903, 
almost  in  its  present  form. 

December,  1905. 

* “ A Socialistic  Contention.”  International  Quarterly,  vol.  viii,  1903. 
One  can  here  find  an  extended  discussion  of  this  question. 


CONTENTS 


Chapter  I — Introductory 

Page 

Objects  of  the  Research i 

Origin  of  Mental  and  Moral  T raits 2 

The  Law  of  Ancestral  Heredity 3 

Methods  and  Difficulties 6 

Methods  here  Employed 10 

The  Question  of  Illegitimates 16 

Classification  into  Grades  for  Intellect 18 

Classification  into  Grades  for  Virtues 32 

Chapter  II  — England 

The  House  of  Hanover 47 

Chapter  III  — Saxe-Coburg-Gotha 

The  Present  Reigning  House  in  England 59 

Chapter  IV — Mecklenburg 

Branches  of  Schwerin,  Giistrow  and  Strelitz 64 

Chapter  V — Brunswick 

Branch  of  Wolfenbiittel  (Bevern  and  Blankenburg) 66 

Chapter  VI  — Prussia 

The  House  of  Hohenzollern 72 

Chapter  VII  — Netherlands 

The  House  of  Nassau-Orange 85 

The  House  of  Nassau-Dietz 94 

Chapter  VIII  — Montmorency,  Conde,  Conty 

The  House  of  Montmorency 98 

The  House  of  Conde 101 

The  House  of  Conty 107 

Chapter  IX  — France 

The  Bourbons  in  France no 

The  House  of  Orleans 119 

Chapter  X — Spain 

Old  Castile,  Aragon  and  Leon 124 

The  Hapsburgs  in  Spain 141 

The  Bourbons  in  Spain 1 50 

vii 


viii  Contents 

Page 

The  Bourbons  in  Italy.  .' 164 

The  Carlist  Pretenders  in  Spain 166 

Chapter  XI  — Austria 

The  House  of  Hapsburg 17^ 

The  House  of  Hapsburg-Lorraine 181 

The  Hapsburg  “Lip” 187 

Chapter  XII  — Portugal 

Conditions  of  the  Country  Compared  with  the  Various  Characteristics  of 

the  Rulers 198 

Pedigrees  of  the  Portuguese  Rulers 207 

Chapter  XIII  — Russia 

The  Romanoffs 219 

Chapter  XIV  — Denmark 

The  House  of  Oldenburg 225 

Chapter  XV  — Sweden 

The  House  of  Vasa 232 

Chapter  XVI 

Evidence  from  Lehr’s  “Genealogy” 248 

Chapter  XVII 

Correlation  Between  Mental  and  Moral  Qualities 255 

Is  the  Mean  Standard  of  Faculty  Rising? 256 

Average  Number  of  Adult  Children  Born  to  Each  Grade  for  Virtues.  . . . 260 

Hereditary  Wealth  not  an  Evil 261 

How  Mental  Faculties  may  be  Rising 263 

Chapter  XVIII 

General  Statistics  and  Conclusions 265 

Intellectual  Achievements  and  Blood  Relationship 265 

Correlation  Coefficients  for  Successive  Ascending  Generations 272 

Succession  Inheritors  Show  no  Influence  from  Environment 285 

Virtues  and  Blood  Relationship 287 

No  Influence  on  Moral  Character  from  Different  Epochs 292 

Concise  Statement  of  the  Probabilities  in  Psychic  Heredity 298 

Intermarriage  not  a Cause  of  Degeneracy 300 

Royalty  Compared  with  Commoners  — No  Degeneracy  in  Many  Royal 

Families — Superiority  of  Royalty 300 

Philosophical  Significance  of  the  Doctrine  of  Heredity 302 

Appendix 

Key  to  the  Bibliography  — References  for  Each  Individual 304 

Bibliography 308 


HEREDITY  IN  ROYALTY 


CHAPTER  I 

This  inquiry  into  the  characteristics  of  royalty,  of 
which  the  following  pages  are  a summary,  is  an  attempt 
to  solve  several  interesting  and  important  questions. 
First,  by  including  all  modern  royal  families,  it  tries  to 
give  a fair  estimate  of  the  mental  and  moral  status  of 
these  privileged  personages  as  compared  to  the  world  in 
general.  Second,  it  seeks  to  find  the  influences  on  the 
individual  and  on  the  breed  of  that  environment  of  rank 
and  power  in  which  these  specially  elect  have  lived  and 
moved.  Third,  by  taking  a great  group  of  interrelated 
human  beings  with  known  pedigrees  and  characteristics, 
it  seeks  to  throw  a little  light,  in  the  nature  of  facts,  on 
the  old  enigma  — Which  is  the  more  important,  environ- 
ment or  heredity,  or  do  both  together  somewhat  fail  to 
explain  all  the  phenomena,  and  must  we  postulate  a 
third  ultranatural  cause,  working  aside  from  biological 
laws,  in  order  to  account  for  all  the  varying  facts  of 
personal  history  and  character? 

It  is  evident  that  each  human  being  has  certain  definite 
mental,  moral,  and  physical  characteristics,  and  that  these 
are  due  to  not  more  than  three  causes,  heredity,  environ- 
ment, and  free-will.  The  first  two  are  generally  consid- 
ered to  play  an  important  part,  and  the  third  is  far  from 
being  ignored  by  some.  It  is  also  very  evident  that  there 
is  but  a hundred  per  cent  of  cause  for  human  character, 
and  whatever  in  our  natures  is  due  to  one  of  these  causes 


1 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


takes  that  much  from  the  others.  It  is  the  chief  aim  of 
these  pages,  by  the  use  of  a scientific  method,  to  get  an 
insight,  rough  though  it  may  be,  into  the  proportionate 
influence  played  by  these  three  factors  in  the  make-up  of 
mental  and  moral  life. 

The  other  questions  touched  upon  are  the  effects  of 
inbreeding,  the  relation  of  genius  to  insanity  and  sterility, 
and  also  the  relationship  between  the  rise  of  a country 
and  the  character  of  the  blood  of  its  kings.  This  last 
has  been  strikingly  evident  in  several  instances,  notably 
Spain,  Portugal,  and  Prussia,  where  the  prosperity  of  the 
lands  has  been  a reflection  of  the  ability  of  the  rulers. 
Here  one  can  trace  a hidden  but  important  cause  for  the 
condition  of  the  country  in  the  different  combinations 
of  ingredients  of  blood  which  have  led  to  the  individual 
peculiarities  in  the  men  and  women  who  ruled  over  these 
realms  and  stamped  their  impresses  upon  them. 

The  vexing  question  of  determining  in  any  way  the 
proportionate  average  influence  taken  by  the  three  pos- 
sible causes  in  the  determination  of  human  faculties  and 
character  can  probably  only  be  solved  when  we  possess, 
on  the  one  hand,  a knowledge  of  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  individuals  lived,  and,  on  the  other,  a complete 
record  of  the  characteristics  of  their  ancestors  and  family 
to  a reasonable  degree  of  remoteness. 

In  many  instances,  psychologists,  historians,  and  phi- 
losophers have  observed  the  evident  relationship  between 
the  lives  and  actions  of  men  and  the  environment  in 
which  they  lived.  Even  as  early  as  Aristotle,  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  Greeks  were  noted  as  midway  between 
the  Chinese  and  the  Egyptians,  and  their  different  rela- 
tions to  the  climate,  geography,  etc.,  were  observed  and 


Heredity  vs.  Other  Causes 


3 


reasoned  upon.  One  of  the  most  famous  of  recent 
names  in  this  connection  is  that  of  Buckle,  who  attempted 
to  reduce  history  to  a science,  and  explain  the  actions  of 
men  according  to  natural  laws.  To  his  mind,  food,  cli- 
mate, volcanoes,  and  other  external  causes,  played  an 
important  part.  Against  Buckle  stood  Carlyle  and  many 
others  who  considered  it  degrading  to  attempt  to  reduce 
human  action  to  mechanics;  for  them  the  great  soul  or 
“hero”  was  the  all-important  element,  and  history  was 
to  be  considered  largely  as  a set  of  biographies  of  great 
men.  Mohammed,  Luther,  and  the  great  kings,  could 
not  be  explained  as  a product  of  the  times.  With  Car- 
lyle must  always  stand  the  theologians  who  dwell  upon 
the  greatness  of  the  human  will  and  the  divinity  of  the 
spiritual  side  of  man,  which  is  supposed  to  raise  him 
above  his  trials  and  make  him  the  true  lord  of  creation. 

In  more  recent  years  an  attempt  has  been  made  to 
show  that  heredity  is  very  important  in  producing  those 
geniuses  whose  influence  is  so  paramount  in  molding  the 
lives  of  others.  Galton  and  de  Candolle  have  met  with 
much  success  in  this  line.  Thus  the  three  factors  have 
all  had  their  supporters  — heredity,  environment,  and 
free-will  — some  would  give  preponderance  to  one  and 
some  to  another,  and  no  one  knows  which  is  the  most 
important  or  influential. 

Now,  thanks  to  the  researches  of  Galton,  Pearson,  and 
others,  the  proportionate  amount  of  hereditary  influence 
from  each  parent,  and  from  each  more  remote  ancestor, 
is  known  with  considerable  approximation  — as  far  as 
physical  traits  are  concerned  — except  as  regards  certain 
peculiar  types.  When,  for  instance,  the  maternal  and 
paternal  stocks  differ  very  much  from  each  other,  or  for 


4 Heredity  in  Royalty 

some  other  reason  we  have  “prepotency,”  as  in  the  case 
of  albino  animals,  or,  perhaps,  when  new  varieties  make 
their  appearance  we  seem  to  have  errors  from  the  expected. 

Still,  the  law  may  be  considered  virtually  true  when 
we  deal  with  large  averages,  and  thus,  by  knowing  what 
we  ought  to  expect  from  heredity  alone,  we  may  take  a 
large  number  of  individuals  with  known  pedigrees,  and 
see  how  closely  the  characters  of  persons  correspond 
with  what  we  should  expect  were  heredity  the  sole  cause 
of  mental  and  moral  peculiarities  — in  other  words,  see 
if  the  results  are  as  certain  when  applied  to  mental  traits 
as  to  the  more  physical  and  tangible  qualities  like  eye 
and  hair  color,  stature,  etc.  If  it  should  be  found  that 
the  human  mind  and  moral  character  are  subject  to  the 
laws  of  heredity,  and  with  an  accuracy  as  constant  as 
the  coloration  of  animals,  then  we  may  conclude  that  the 
mind  and  character  are  very  strongly  inherited,  since 
coloration  in  animals  is  due  to  what  we  at  present  at  any 
rate  consider  heredity.  Of  course  we  do  not  expect  to 
find  the  same  accuracy  in  dealing  with  psychic  aspects, 
since  every  one  thinks  that  moral  traits,  for  instance,  are 
much  the  result  of  environment  — education,  example, 
etc.  Let  us,  by  studying  human  characters  and  com- 
paring them  with  their  close  blood  relations,  see  how 
strong  inheritance  appears  to  be. 

It  is  often  impossible  to  say  in  any  individual,  how 
much  is  due  to  one  and  how  much  to  another  cause,  but 
by  taking  a large  number  we  may  estimate  in  a rough 
way  the  proportionate  reliance  that  is  to  be  placed  in 
each  factor  on  the  average. 

The  material  on  which  Galton  bases  his  “Law  of  the 
Average  Contribution  of  Each  Separate  Ancestor  to  the 


The  Law  of  Ancestral  Heredity  5 

Total  Inheritance  of  the  Offspring,”  has  been  taken  from 
several  sources.  In  his  work  “Hereditary  Genius,”  1869, 
he  got  the  first  suggestion,  and  subsequently  by  using 
such  family  traits  as  hair  and  eye  color,  stature  and 
artistic  faculty,  he  increased  the  material  to  work  from. 
Lately  a breed  of  basset  hounds  has  contributed  to  his 
final  announcement  of  a definite  law  by  which  one  may 
measure  the  probable  make-up  of  the  inherited  qualities 
of  a child  when  one  knows  the  ancestry.  Much  more 
material  has  recently  been  added  by  Pearson  and  others. 

Gabon’s  law,  based  on  stature  and  color  in  animals, 
etc.,  is  this:  Each  child  inherits  one-half  of  his  make-up 
from  his  parents,  one-half  of  the  remaining  half  from  his 
grandparents,  one-half  of  the  remaining  one-fourth  from 
his  great-grandparents,  and  so  on  to  infinity.  Thus  each 
parent  contributes  one-fourth  of  the  entire  influence,  each 
grandparent  one-fourth  of  one-fourth,  or  one-sixteenth, 
each  great-grandparent  one-eighth  of  one-eighth,  or  one- 
sixty-fourth,  and  so  on.  So  we  see  how  little  is  the 
influence  to  be  expected  from  heredity  from  one  distin- 
guished great-grandfather. 

Of  course,  if  this  law  holds,  children  must  resemble 
their  parents  on  the  whole  more  closely  than  their  grand- 
parents, and  we  should  expect  a child  to  resemble  in  a 
complete  way,  a grandparent  much  less  frequently  than 
a parent,  and  also  cousins  must  resemble  each  other 
much  less  frequently  than  brothers  and  sisters. 

This  is  very  likely  the  case,  but  there  is  a popular 
idea  held  by  many  to  the  contrary,  or  at  least  that  cousins 
are  very  apt  to  resemble  each  other,  and  that  children  are 
as  likely  to  “take  after”  uncles  and  aunts  as  parents. 
Besides,  I have  often  seen  it  expressed  that  insanity  is 


6 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


more  prone  to  skip  a generation  or  two,  or  go  collater- 
ally, than  to  appear  at  once  in  a son  or  daughter.  This 
led  me  to  somewhat  doubt  Gabon’s  law.  I have  had  the 
satisfaction  of  making  an  application  of  Gabon’s  “ law 
of  heredity  ” to  the  first  instance  that  came  at  hand, 
seeing  how  far  it  gave  practical  results,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  collecting  a few  facts  bearing  on  such  questions  as 
the  effects  of  inbreeding  and  the  relation  between  genius 
and  insanity  and  sterility. 

The  most  interesting  and  even  startling  thing  has  been 
the  ease  with  which  heredity  alone  has  been  able  to  bear 
the  brunt  of  explaining  the  general  make-up  of  character; 
thus,  to  a great  extent,  leaving  out  the  necessity  of  re- 
ferring the  rough  outlines  of  character  either  to  environ- 
ment, or  free-will,  at  least  in  the  case  of  kings  and  queens, 
where  the  pedigrees  are  traceable.  Of  course,  it  makes 
the  question  strongly  arise  — Would  not  the  same  be 
found  true  in  any  family  if  the  pedigree  were  discoverable  ? 

But  pedigrees  of  human  beings  are  the  rarest  things  in 
the  world*  Many  a man  has  a family  tree,  or  can  trace 
back  his  ancestry  in  the  male  line  even  to  the  Norman 
conquest,  and  this,  of  course,  is  of  practically  no  use  sci- 
entifically; but  the  number  of  families  who  have  a com- 
plete pedigree  and  a knowledge  of  the  mental  and  physi- 
cal condition  of  all  ancestors  to  even  the  third  generation, 
must  be  exceedingly  small.  It  is  really  surprising,  even 
in  royalty,  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  any  information  on 
the  maternal  side.  In  fact,  the  late  Queen  of  England 
may  be  said  to  have  known  nothing  of  two  of  her  own 
great-grandparents.  At  least,  I can  say  with  consider- 

* Wherever  I use  the  word  pedigree  in  these  pages  I mean  a genealogi- 
cal chart  worked  out  in  all  the  ascending  ancestral  lines,  maternal  as  well  as 
paternal. 


Methods  and  Difficulties 


7 


able  certainty,  that  there  is  absolutely  nothing  written 
about  one  of  them,  the  Countess  of  Reuss-Ebersdorf, 
and  I could  find  nothing  in  this  country  about  the  other, 
Count  Henry  XXIV,  of  Reuss-Ebersdorf.  It  was  only 
after  many  days  of  search  in  the  British  Museum  that  I 
was  able  to  unearth  anything  at  all,  and  then  it  was  just 
one  word.  All  this  shows  how  little  attention  has  been 
paid  to  heredity  in  the  biological  sense,  and  how  little 
people  have  realized  on  what  their  future  family  welfare 
depends. 

Heredity  has  always  been  prized  and  partial  pedigrees 
maintained,  but  the  reason  has  not  been  scientific,  it  has 
been  social.  The  methods  employed  by  Galton  and 
Candolle  to  prove  the  hereditary  nature  of  genius  have 
been  open  to  more  than  one  objection.  By  taking  bio- 
graphical dictionaries  of  eminent  men  and  then  searching 
for  their  relatives,  who  were  also  distinguished,  they  were 
liable  to  the  conscious  or  unconscious  selection  of  cases 
which  would  prove  their  point.  This  seems  evident  in 
many  places.  For  instance,  Galton’s  chapter  on  literary 
men  is  open  to  the  objection  which  he  himself  points  out, 
that  it  is  so  difficult  to  say  who  is  eminent  in  literature 
and  who  is  not.  “Mere  popular  fame  may  soon  go.  A 
man  of  fair  ability  in  literature  turns  out  a great  deal  of 
good  work.  There  is  always  a chance  that  some  of  it 
may  attain  a reputation  very  far  superior  to  its  real 
merits  because  the  author  may  have  something  to  narrate 
which  the  world  wants  to  hear,  or  he  may  have  had 
particular  experiences  which  qualify  him  to  write  works 
of  fiction,  or  otherwise  to  throw  out  views  singularly 
apposite  to  the  wants  of  the  time,  but  of  no  importance 
in  after  years.  Here  also  fame  misleads.” 


8 Heredity  in  Royalty 

Therefore,  Galton  made  use  of  no  system  in  the  selec- 
tion of  his  cases,  and  one  might  say  that  he  showed  a 
preference  for  those  who  had  eminent  relatives.  He 
inquired  into  the  kinships  of  thirty-seven  literary  men, 
and  found  nineteen  who  did  not  appear  to  have  eminent 
relatives.  Many  might  think  this  list  far  from  complete. 
And  there  certainly  is  no  very  exact  way  of  deciding  who 
should  enter  such  a list  of  eminent  literary  men  and 
who  should  not.  The  same  applies  to  the  list  of  poets. 

In  his  supplementary  list  of  great  statesmen  of  various 
periods  and  countries,  it  is  strange  he  should  have  men- 
tioned but  one  American,  and  that  John  Adams.  John 
Adams  was  not  conspicuously  our  greatest  statesman, 
as  this  might  indicate.  Still,  Galton  takes  him,  appar- 
ently, because  he  was  distinguished,  and  had  a distin- 
guished son  and  grandson. 

Another  of  the  chief  objections  to  Gabon’s  same  work, 
is  the  element  of  family  patronage.  J H.  Nisbet,  in  his 
work  on  “Marriage  and  Heredity,”  writes  that  “Not 
only  are  a large  proportion  of  Galton’s  eminent  men 
mediocrities,  but  in  his  mistaken  zeal  for  making  out  a 
case  that  writer  seems  to  have  ignored  the  influence  of 
family  patronage  and  other  fortuitous  sources  of  social 
or  official  distinction.”  This  idea  that  patronage,  edu- 
cation, encouragement,  and  example,  are  the  real  causes 
why  sons  fre  uently  emulate  their  fathers,  may  be  well- 
contended,  md  the  influence  that  makes  the  second  judge 
by  the  same  name  sit  on  the  bench  may  be  social  as 
much  as  physiological.  But  this  and  the  other  objec- 
tions cannot  be  raised  against  the  evidence  contained 
within  these  pages. 

In  order  to  get  material  for  such  a study,  one  might 


Methods  and  Difficulties 


9 


take  individuals  at  random,  and  then  their  brothers  and 
sisters  and  all  their  ancestors  to  a reasonable  degree  of 
remoteness,  say  all  the  great-grandparents,  which  would 
give  eighty-seven  and  one-half  per  cent  of  the  entire  influ- 
ence. This  would  be  extremely  difficult,  as  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  verify  even  the  names  of  all  the  great- 
grandparents  of  most  people,  let  alone  their  mental  and 
moral  traits.  Or  one  might  use  a large  number  of  uncles 
and  aunts  to  determine  the  latent  inheritance  of  the  an- 
cestry, not  known  in  the  parents.  Unless  one  had  some 
proper  way  of  selecting  the  material,  he  might  take  in- 
stances that  illustrate  some  theory  and  neglect  others  that 
do  not. 

The  method  I have  employed  has  been  to  take  indi- 
viduals merely  by  blood  relationship,  and  include  every 
person  about  whom  anything  could  be  found.  By  doing 
this,  I have  escaped  any  selection  of  cases  which  illus- 
trate a theory  and  at  the  same  time  know  the  exact  blood 
relationship  of  every  person  to  every  other  person.  Of 
all  families  applicable  to  this  method  the  royal  ones  offer 
the  most  favorable  field,  owing  to  the  maintenance  of 
family  trees  and  the  great  interest  that  has  always  been 
taken  in  their  lives  and  characters  as  found  in  histories, 
biographies  and  court  memoirs.  Besides,  although  all 
have  the  highest  social  rank,  they  have  lived  in  different 
countries,  in  different  centuries,  and  under  varying  cir- 
cumstances, with  different  educations  and  opportunities. 
Their  peculiar  positions  make  it  unwise  to  compare  them 
with  men  at  large;  but,  having  a great  number,  we  can 
properly  compare  them  with  each  other  and  judge  them 
according  to  a standard  of  their  own. 

Galton  in  his  “ Hereditary  Genius”  purposely  avoided 


io  Heredity  in  Royalty 

royalty,  because,  as  he  says,  the  qualities  that  make  a 
great  king  are  not  the  same  as  those  which  form  genius 
in  general.  In  this  work  it  is  no  drawback,  since  here  I 
have  gone  with  more  pains  into  the  question  of  intellect 
and  actual  achievements,  and  a man  is  not  given  the 
same  rank  for  being  a wise  and  successful  ruler  that  he 
is  for  great  and  brilliant  creative  achievements.  The  ad- 
jectives that  are  used  by  biographers  and  historians  are  the 
basis  of  the  estimate , and  by  this  standard  William  I,  of 
Germany,  would  not  rank  with  Frederick  the  Great,  since 
one  does  not  find  the  same  admiration  expressed  for  his 
intellect.  (See  infra  under  the  heading  Grading  Intellect.) 

By  taking  down  every  individual  met  in  every  degree 
of  blood  relationship  and  also  everything  in  the  nature 
of  a characterization  or  adjective  applied  to  him,  I have 
been  able  to  verify  or  check  the  estimates,  and  avoid  the 
difficulty  which  one  might  expect  to  arise  from  a lack  of 
uniformity  of  opinion.  It  is  really  very  easy  to  get  a 
sufficiently  clear  idea,  in  a rough  way,  of  the  mental  and 
moral  status  of  any  historical  character.  The  accounts 
may  vary  on  some  points,  but  not  much  on  essentials. 
Thus,  in  the  case  of  Frederick  the  Great,  none  would 
question  his  high  intellectual  standing,  though  consid- 
erable difference  of  opinion  would  be  found  relative  to 
his  moral  qualities,  most  putting  him  rather  low.  The 
same  would  apply  to  Napoleon,  but  in  both  these  in- 
stances the  interesting  and  important  thing  to  be  ex- 
plained is  the  intellect,  and  of  this  we  can  form  a suffi- 
ciently just  estimate.  In  the  same  way  the  important 
fact  regarding  Prince  Albert,  consort  of  Queen  Victoria, 
is  his  high  moral  tone  and  studious  tendencies,  and  about 
these  we  can  have  no  question.  So  that  in  the  main, 


Methods  Employed 


1 1 

two  sufficiently  accurate  scales  can  be  formed  in  which 
to  place  them  all,  one  for  the  intellectual  side  and  one  for 
the  moral  side,  some  error,  of  course,  anticipated. 

Grades  from  (i)  to  (io)  have  been  used  for  each  class 
of  traits,  intellectual  and  moral,  (i)  being  the  lowest  and 
(io)  the  highest,  and  attention  has  also  been  paid  to  the 
“law  of  deviation  from  an  average,”  by  which  most 
people  are  made  to  range  close  to  mediocrity,  the  geniuses 
and  imbeciles  being  relatively  few.  This  law  is  set  forth 
in  Gabon’s  “Hereditary  Genius,”  page  22,  and  is  prob- 
ably as  true  of  mental  stature  as  of  physical,  where  it 
has  been  proved  by  actual  measurements.  (See  gradings 
for  intellect,  page  19.)  This  consideration  is  of  great 
importance  in  proving  the  inherited  nature  of  genius 
and  stupidity,  because  if  after  placing  most  of  our  indi- 
viduals in  grades  (4),  (5),  (6),  and  (7),  and  admitting 
only  a very  few  to  grades  (9)  and  (10),  or  to  (1)  and  (2), 
we  still  find  them  to  be  closely  related  to  others  in  their 
own  grades,  it  is  all  the  more  a proof  of  heredity. 

Besides  this  number  I have  been  able  (thanks  to  the 
“Genealogy”  of  Lehr,  which  contains  the  full  pedigree, 
male  and  female,  to  the  twelfth  generation,  of  all  the 
northern  ruling  families)  to  extend  the  number  to  about 
3,500  related  persons  as  a field  for  study  of  genius  alone. 

This  book  contains  the  names  of  3,312  distinct  per- 
sons, but  by  intermarriages  and  repetition  the  actual 
number  is  raised  to  32,768.  It  would,  of  course,  be  a 
very  long  undertaking  to  look  up  the  characters  of  3,312 
persons,  but  by  using  the  index  and  Lippincott’s  “Bio- 
graphical Dictionary”  it  was  not  hard  to  tell  how  many 
of  the  number  are  not  mentioned  at  all,  and,  consequently, 
were  not  geniuses  or  worthy  of  grades  (9)  or  (10).  It 


12 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


seems  fair  to  assume  that  if  a person  was  of  noble  rank 
(and  there  are  practically  none  others  in  Lehr’s  “ Gene- 
alogy”) and  did  not  distinguish  himself  sufficiently  to 
gain  a place  in  a biographical  dictionary  as  large  as 
Lippincott’s,  he  could  not  have  been  very  great,  at  least 
as  regards  outward  achievements,  which  is  the  standard 
here  employed. 

The  standard  for  grades  (9)  and  (10)  is  very  high  in- 
deed. It  is  made  up  of  really  great  names,  and  includes 
few  below  the  standard  of  William  the  Silent,  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  Peter  the  Great,  and  the  Great  Conde,  Turenne, 
Maurice  of  Nassau,  and,  among  the  women,  Isabella  of 
Castile,  Maria  Theresa,  Elizabeth  of  Palatine,  and  the 
Duchess  of  Longueville. 

Of  course,  being  in  Lippincott’s  is  no  criterion  of  mental 
caliber  in  a king,  so  that  many  who  are  there  must  be  at 
once  thrown  out,  as,  for  instance,  Louis  XIII,  XV,  and 
XVI,  of  France.  No  one  is  placed  in  grade  (9)  or  (10) 
for  intellect,  unless  his  or  her  name  appears  in  Lippin- 
cott’s and  is  also  eulogized  for  mental  endowments  or  dis- 
tinguished achievements.  There  are  only  a few,  and 
those  are  actual  kings,  who  appear  in  this  biographical 
dictionary,  merely  on  account  of  their  birth.  They  are 
easily  detected,  as  here  we  find  blame,  not  praise,  and 
would  be  excluded  by  any  one  from  the  highest  grades. 

Occasionally,  I have  met  with  a character  in  the  his- 
tories or  large  biographies  who  seemed  to  me  to  be  worthy 
of  rank  (9)  or  (10),  whose  name  is  not  to  be  found  in 
Lippincott’s.  Such  a person  was  Sophia  “The  Philo- 
sophical Queen,”  of  Prussia,  and  grandmother  of  Fred- 
erick the  Great,  but  these  have  been  rigorously  kept  out, 
in  order  to  make  the  standard  as  impersonal  as  possible. 


Methods  Employed 


*3 


By  starting  with  the  present  king  of  England  and  in- 
cluding all  his  ancestors  to  four  generations,  and  then 
all  the  other  descendants  of  these  ancestors,  all  their 
wives  and  their  ancestors,  and  stretching  out  in  every 
direction  by  this  endless-chain  method,  taking  every  one 
about  whom  enough  could  be  found  to  be  satisfactory, 
I have  at  present  obtained  mental  and  moral  descriptions 
of  over  six  hundred  interrelated  individuals,  including 
pretty  completely  the  following  countries  of  Europe : 
England  (Elouse  of  Hanover),  Germany,  France,  the 
Netherlands,  Spain,  Portugal,  Austria,  Italy,  Russia, 
Denmark,  and  Sweden.  The  period  covered  extends  in 
general  back  to  about  the  sixteenth  century,  but  in  the 
case  of  Spain  and  Portugal,  to  the  eleventh  century. 

The  royal  families  as  a whole  may  be  divided  into  a 
number  of  subfamilies,  corresponding  to  the  various  male 
lines.  Of  course,  according  to  the  view  here  constantly 
insisted  upon,  the  maternal  lines  are  quite  as  much  of 
consequence  as  the  paternal;  but,  as  some  divisions  have 
to  be  made  somewhere,  they  will  be  made  by  using  the 
family  name  as  a heading,  for  the  sake  of  clearness. 

The  following  families  have  been  analyzed  completely 
and  minutely;  each  child  who  reached  the  age  of  thirty 
or  older  * being  included,  and  given  a separate  number, 
always  inclosed  in  square  brackets. 

I have  followed  von  Behr’s  “Genealogy  of  the  Reign- 
ing Princely  Houses  of  Europe,”  Leipzig,  1870,  and  by 
the  use  of  this  excellent  and  exhaustive  work  have  been 
able  to  count  the  number  of  children  who  reached  adult 
years,  and  should,  therefore,  have  left  records  behind 

* A few  who  only  reached  the  twenties  have  also  been  included  when  they 
have  shown  very  marked  peculiarities. 


14 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


them.  Sometimes  — perhaps  in  as  much  as  twenty  per 
cent  of  all  cases  — absolutely  nothing  can  be  found  about 
a person,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  or  she  bore  the  rank 
of  prince  or  princess  in  their  day.  In  these  cases  we,  at 
least,  know,  that  whatever  their  intellectual  capacity  may 
have  been,  their  outward  achievements  were  slight,  and, 
according  to  the  standard  here  employed,  they  could  not 
be  above  mediocrity,  even  were  their  careers  recorded. 
They  would  also  probably  fall  not  far  below  the  mean, 
for  I believe  that  actual  imbecility,  or  strong  peculiarities 
of  any  kind  usually  find  mention  somewhere.  Although 
we  can  use  such  characters  in  a negative  way  in  the 
study  of  mental  inheritance,  as  far  as  moral  qualities  go, 
these  had  best  be  ignored.  Such  individuals,  when  found, 
will  be  labeled  “obscure.’’  In  many  families  the  intro- 
duction of  “obscure”  ancestry  will  be  seen  to  account 
for  the  disappearance  of  high  intellectual  gifts.  The 
families  minutely  studied  are  arranged  in  separate  chap- 


ters in  the  following  order: 

CHAPTER. 

II.  England  (House  of  Hanover) OH37I 

' Saxe-Coburg [38H59] 

Saxe- Gotha [60H84] 

" Saxe-Meiningen [85H95] 

Reuss-Ebersdorf M-Uul 

IV.  Mecklenburg hisHw®] 

V.  Brunswick [mH*»7] 

VI.  Prussia [*i8H*s6] 

VII.  Nassau [2S7H32l] 

r Montmorency [322H334] 

VIII.  -5  Condd [335H362] 

( Conty  [363H370] 

t Bourbons  in  France [371H400] 

( Orleans  in  France [401H423] 


Methods  Employed  15 

CHAPTER. 

t Spain  (Old  Line)  [424H509] 

X.  ■<  Hapsburgs  in  Spain [5i°Hs3s] 

( Bourbons  in  Spain  and  Italy [536H582] 

XI.  Hapsburgs  in  Austria [583H656] 

XII.  Portugal  [657H741] 

XIII.  Russia [742H767] 

XIV.  Denmark [768H803] 

XV.  Sweden [804H832] 


The  study  of  these  eight  hundred  thirty-two  charac- 
ters forms  the  main  body  of  the  work. 

All  the  above  families  are  related  to  each  other  through 
some  connecting  link,  and  have  been  picked  up  one  after 
another,  as  the  endless  chain  has  stretched  out  in  every 
direction. 

Besides  these  male  lines  given  above,  many  other  per- 
sons, not  numbered,  have  come  into  the  study  by  reason 
of  being  ancestors  of  some  already  included.  In  the 
subdivisions  mentioned  in  the  list  above,  I have  usually 
started  with  some  member  of  the  family  who  is  given 
prominence  in  the  genealogies,  as  founder  of  a line,  and 
numbered  him  and  the  adult  descendants  in  each  genera- 
tion as  far  as  the  present  day,  but  not  persons  now  living. 

Besides  the  numbers  in  the  square  brackets,  which  are 
used  to  distinguish  the  separate  individuals,  I shall  ask 
the  reader  to  keep  in  mind  the  meaning  of  three  other 
arbitrary  symbols,  which  are,  however,  simple  and  run 
through  the  entire  book. 

The  marks  indicative  of  the  different  grades  are  always 
inclosed  in  parentheses,  thus,  (1),  (2),  (3),  etc.,  (1)  being 
the  lowest  and  (10)  the  highest  grade.  When  a person’s 
name  is  coupled  with  but  one  grade  number,  this  number 
refers  to  the  intellectual  standing,  unless  otherwise  stated. 


1 6 Heredity  in  Royalty 

When  two  numbers  are  used,  the  first  refers  to  the  intel- 
lectual grade  and  the  second  to  the  moral.  In  most 
places,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  person’s  name  appears 
in  some  such  style  as  this  : (7)  (4)  Louis  XIV [379].  The 
(7)  referring  to  his  intellectual,  and  the  (4)  to  his  moral 
grade  in  the  scale  of  ten.  The  t379]  is  his  special  number; 
and  as  these  begin  in  the  first  part  of  the  book  and  run 
continuously  through,  it  is  easy  to  look  up  the  fuller 
account  and  references  for  each  individual. 

Another  symbol,  the  black  cross,  x,  is  used  to  desig- 
nate that  the  person  is  in  one  of  the  three  lowest  grades 
for  moral  qualities;  and  this  symbol  is  convenient  for 
calling  attention  to  the  distinctly  bad,  or  vicious  char- 
acters, and  bringing  out  their  relationship  with  others  of 
the  same  type. 

The  other  peculiarity  which  I wish  to  mention  is  that 
bold-faced  type  is  used  in  printing  the  names  of  those 
who  fall  in  the  two  highest  grades  (9)  and  (10)  for  intel- 
lect. Thus,  we  have  (10)  (1)  x Catherine  II  of 
Russia. 

It  may  have  occurred  to  some  of  my  readers  that  an 
error  would  be  introduced  into  a study  of  this  kind  from 
the  fact  that  in  some  instances,  the  ascribed  father, 
as  given  in  the  genealogies,  was  not  the  real  father.  It 
is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  genealogies  pay  no  atten- 
tion to  court  scandals.  But  in  spite  of  this,  I feel  very 
confident  that  any  error  arising  from  this  source  must 
be  slight,  and  that,  in  at  least  ninety-five  per  cent  of  all 
cases,  the  standard  genealogies  give  us  the  truth. 

Owing  to  the  strong  light  of  publicity  in  which  queens 
have  lived,  it  has  hardly  been  possible  for  any  intrigues 
to  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  writers  of  court 


Methods  Employed 


17 


memoirs.  Our  own  statistics,  as  tabulated  in  the  grades 
for  virtues,  show  that  queens  of  questionable  morality 
have  been  decidedly  the  exception,  and  these,  fortu- 
nately, have  not  usually  been  ancestors  of  the  lines  sub- 
sequently studied,  and,  consequently,  have  no  bearing  on 
the  question  of  the  reliability  of  genealogies.  In  the  few 
notorious  instances  where  an  error  from  this  source  would 
affect  the  conclusions,  I have  made  a special  notice  of 
the  fact,  and  have  left  the  children  of  such  queens  out 
of  discussion  entirely. 

As  the  value  of  the  whole  work  rests  upon  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  grading,  the  methods  employed  to  obtain 
these  grades  are  given  in  considerable  detail.  If  it 
appears  later  on  that  the  writer  is  too  much  of  a self- 
constituted  judge  of  characters,  it  is  to  be  remembered 
that  he  is  only  giving  the  opinions  of  others.  All  opin- 
ions, adjectives,  and  characterizations  have  been  faith- 
fully copied  on  separate  sheets  for  each  person,  and  then 
these  opinions  have  been  averaged,  thus  getting  the  truth 
from  the  mouths  of  many  witnesses. 

Modern  historians  and  lexicographers  doubtless  often 
copy  one  another.  To  offset  this,  contemporary  opinions 
have  been  also  introduced  in  many  cases.  At  all  events, 
the  evidence  must  stand  for  what  it  is  worth.  It  has, 
when  compiled  after  this  method  of  averaging,  a certain 
objective  value;  and  the  comparative  perfection  of  the 
charts  and  correlation  tables  in  the  last  chapter  of  the 
book,  seem  to  be  themselves  a proof,  not  only  of  the 
conclusions,  but  also,  of  the  comparative  correctness  of 
the  grades  on  which  they  are  based. 

In  a work  of  this  sort,  some  errors,  and  perhaps,  not 
a few  blunders,  may  have  been  introduced,  but  I think 


iS  Heredity  in  Royalty 

it  may  be  fairly  granted,  that  these  will  not  affect  the 
main  conclusions  to  be  derived  from  this  research. 

Grading  Intellect 

In  placing  the  different  individuals  in  the  various 
grades  (i)  to  (io),  the  following  methods  have  been 
pursued. 

As  concerns  intellectual  rating,  Lippincott’s“  Biographi- 
cal Dictionary  ” (Thomas)  was  first  consulted,  and  if 
the  person’s  name  appeared  there,  and  if  “eminent,” 
“illustrious,”  or  other  adjectives  praising  intellect  were 
used  in  describing  the  mental  traits,  and  if  this  view  was 
borne  out  by  the  further  use  of  historical  authorities,  the 
individual  was  placed  in  one  of  the  grades  (9)  or  (10), 
according  to  his  relative  importance.  Let  us  next  turn 
to  the  two  lowest  grades  (1)  and  (2).  These  are  filled 
with  the  few  who  have  been  described  as  “imbeciles”  or 
“fools”  and  have  usually  been  considered  unfit  to  govern, 
so  that,  in  cases  where  the  throne  has  fallen  to  them, 
regents  have  been  necessarily  appointed.  Grade  (3)  has 
been  for  those  who  were  not  actually  feeble-minded,  but 
have  been  recognized  as  nonentities  from  the  intellectual 
standpoint.  The  great  majority,  however,  have  been 
placed  in  the  middle  grades  (4),  (5),  (6),  and  (7)  accord- 
ing to  the  relative  praise  for  mental  qualities  which  each 
has  received.  Here  the  large  French  and  German  bio- 
graphical dictionaries  have  been  the  chief  basis  for 
estimation,  supplemented  by  histories  and  court  memoirs. 
This  leaves  grade  (8)  for  those  who,  we  may  conclude, 
were  brilliant  but  at  the  same  time  not  illustrious  enough 
to  be  in  the  (9)  or  (10)  grades. 

The  fact  that  only  a pretty  definite  number  could  be 


Grading  Intellect 


i9 


placed  in  any  one  grade,  has  greatly  helped  in  the  ratings. 
For  instance,  a man  now  in  (8)  might  be  mentioned  in 
Lippincott’s  and  receive  high  praise,  so  that,  at  first 
thought  we  should  place  him  in  grade  (10).  The  pres- 
ence of  others  more  remarkable,  and  the  knowledge  that 
only  a few  could  ultimately  rest  in  the  highest  grades, 
may  have  necessitated  this  man’s  position  in  grade  (8). 

As  the  males  have  only  been  compared  with  other 
males,  and  the  females  with  females,  whatever  natural 
difference  may  exist  between  the  two  sexes  does  not  in 
any  way  confuse  the  work.  If  the  female  standard  of 
intellect  is  lower  than  the  male,  it  is  at  once  raised  to  the 
same  standard  by  virtue  of  the  method  employed. 

The  table  below  shows  the  number  of  persons  in  each 
sex,  who,  out  of  the  total  six  hundred  seventy-one,  have 
been  placed  in  each  separate  grade.  The  number  fall- 
ing in  each  grade  is  spoken  of  as  the  frequency. 


Males  (Intellect) 


Grades 

(0 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Frequency 

7 

21 

41 

49 

71 

70 

68 

43 

l8 

7 

395 

Feilales  (Intellect) 


Grades 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(s') 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Frequency 

2 

5 

IO 

42 

87 

5i 

39 

21 

12 

7 

On  looking  over  the  number  of  individuals  in  each 
grade,  one  sees  that  nearly  a half  of  all  concerned  fall  in 
the  two  middle  grades  (5)  and  (6).  This  exemplifies 
what  is  known  as  “the  law  of  deviation  from  an  average,” 


20 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


and  means  that  when  a large  number  of  measurements 
are  taken  of  any  biological  characteristic  and  graded  in 
a numerical  series,  they  will  fall  so  that  proportionally 
more  lie  in  the  grades  approaching  the  mean,  and  less 
and  less  as  the  measurements  show  extreme  variation. 
On  this  view,  then,  in  any  homogeneous  group  of  per- 
sons, fools  are  as  rare  as  geniuses,  and  may  differ  much 
from  the  mean;  but  the  great  mass  of  humanity  is  such 
that  in  any  given  characteristic,  one  is  much  like  another. 
The  social  scale  is  not  to  be  conceived  of  as  a pyramid 
in  which  the  favored  few  are  represented  at  the  apex, 
and  the  masses  below,  more  and  more  numerous  as  we 
descend  the  scale;  but  rather  as  a figure  like  a Rugby 
football  with  the  masses  occupying  the  medium  zone. 
Actual  paupers  are  as  rare  as  the  very  rich. 

The  names  of  those  occupying  the  various  grades  for 
intellect  are  given  in  the  following  lists,  arranged  alpha- 
betically, according  to  the  family  in  which  they  were 
born.  Those  who  have  numbers  following  the  name 
occur  in  the  male  lines  of  the  houses  minutely  studied. 
For  references,  see  Appendix. 

Males 

Grade  (i).  ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Ferdinand  I to*],  resigned,  1848;  Brunswick,  Ivan 
s.  of  Anthony  Ulric  (see  Russia);  Portugal,  Alfonso  VI  [713];  Russia, 
Feodor  [749],  s.  of  Alexis;  Ivan  bsU,  s.  of  Alexis;  Spain,  Charles  II [535] ; 
Philip  [544],  imbecile  son  of  Charles  III. 

Grade  (2).  ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Ernest  1596],  s_  Gf  Maximilian  II;  Francis  Charles  16561, 
father  of  present  Emperor;  Bourbon,  Charles,  Duke  of  Berry [387]; 
Louis  Is8'],  s.  of  Louis  XIV;  Philip  V of  Spain  [386];  Brunswick, 
Augustus  l21*];  George  t2I3l;  Denmark,  Christian  VII  [792];  Hanover, 


Classification  in  Grades 


21 


Frederick  Henry hd,  brother  of  George  III;  Portugal,  Henry,  Cardi- 
nal [709];  Russia,  Alexis [764],  s.  of  Peter  the  Great;  Peter  III;  Spain, 
Balthazar [532],  s.  of  Philip  IV;  Carlos  [523],  s.  of  Philip  II;  Ferdinand 
IV,  King  of  Naples  [546];  Ferdinand  VII  fssi] ; Francis  II,  of  the 
Two  Sicilies,  b.  1836;  Ferdinand,  Duke  of  Parma fss8];  Francis  de 
Paula  C554] ; John  II,  of  Castile  [490];  Philip  III  [526], 

Grade  (3).  ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Rainer [648] ; Bourbon,  Charles  X,  King  of  France [397]; 
Gaston,  d’Orleans [377];  Louis  XIII [374];  Louis  XVhss];  Philip,  Duke 
of  Orleans  hM ; Brunswick,  Charles  ho2];  Conde,  CharleshssJ  b.  1700; 
Louis  IVhsiJ  b.  1692;  Denmark,  George [781J  husband  of  Anne  of 
England;  Frederick  Vhss];  Frederick  [794J  of  Frederick  V;  Hanover, 
Frederick,  Duke  of  York h4j,  s.  of  George  III;  Frederick,  Prince  of 
Wales h°];  George  II M,  King  of  Great  Britain;  William,  Duke  of 
Gloucester hsl,  nephew  of  George  III;  William  Henry,  Duke  of 
Gloucester  ho] ; William  IV  hs],  King  of  Great  Britain;  Holstein, 
Charles  Frederick,  s.  of  Frederick  IV;  Nassau,  William  Vh”]; 
Portugal,  Alfonso h’8!,  s.  of  Alfonso  III;  Alfonso,  s.  of  John  II; 
Ferdinand  IC68s],  s.  of  Peterl684l;  John  IIIb°4];  John  VIh27];  Peter 
III [722] ; Sebastian,  d.  1578;  Prussia,  Frederick  I [226];  George  Wil- 
liam hw];  Russia,  Paul,  Emperor;  Peter  II [767];  Savoy,  Charles 
Emanuel  IV;  Spain,  Charles  IV h4s];  CarloshszJ  s_  0f  Charles  IV; 
Francis  I,  of  the  Two  Sicilies  h6j];  Francis  d’Assis;  Henry  IV,  of 
Castileh93l;  John  I,  of  Castileh87];  John [579],  b.  1822,  s.  of  Carlos; 
Philip  the  Handsome  Is11!;  Philip  of  Parma  ^39]. 

Grade  (4).  ( Intellect .) 

A ustria,  Charles  VI,  Emperor  l622!;  Ferdinand,  Duke  of  Modena  ^36]; 
Francis  Ih2?];  Francis  II f64°] ; Bourbon,  Anthony,  King  of  Navarre  [371]; 
Brunswick,  Charles  hi6],  b.  1804;  Frederick  William  his];  Conty, 
Armandh44];  d’Este,  Hercules,  b.  1727,  d.  1803;  Hanover,  Adol- 
phus, Duke  of  Cambridge  ha];  Augustus,  Duke  of  Sussex  hd,  s. 
of  George  III;  Edward, Duke  of  Kenth7],  s.  of  George  III;  George 
Ih],  King  of  Great  Britain;  George  III  hsj  King  of  Great  Britain; 
George  IV h3],  King  of  Great  Britain;  Maille , Urbain  de  Maille  de 
Breze;  Medici,  Cosimo  II,  s.  of  Ferdinand  I;  Francis,  s.  of  Cosimo; 


22  Heredity  in  Royalty 

Nassau,  William  IV  [31°];  Orange,  Philip  William  t26?!,  s.  of  William 
the  Silent;  Palatine,  Edward,  s.  of  Frederic  V;  Portugal,  Alfonso 
V[6osl ; Antonio,  nat.  s.  of  Louis [707] ; John  IVt?11] ; Miguel  [732]; 
Sancho  II C6?2!;  Prussia,  Frederick  William  II  [238] ; Frederick  Wil- 
liam III  [244];  Henry  [249l;  s.  of  Frederick  William  II;  Orleans, 
Louis [408] ; Louis  Philippe  hud,  1725-1785;  Louis  Philippe  (Ega- 
lit^)  [412];  Reuss,  Henry  XXIV tI02l;  Russia,  Alexis^],  s.  of  Anthony 
Ulric  of  Brunswick;  Miloslavski,  Ilia;  Nariskin,  Cyril ; Peter [762],  s. 
of  Anthony  Ulric;  Savoy,  Charles  Emanuel  II;  Charles  Felix,  b. 
1765;  Victor  Amadeus  II;  Victor  Amadeus  III;  Victor  Emanuel  I; 
Saxe-Coburg,  Ernest  Frederick  [43];  Ferdinand  Css];  Francis^];  Sax- 
ony, Augustus  II,  s.  of  Augustus  I;  Spain,  Alfonso  XII,  b.  1857; 
Alfonso  [382]  (Modern  Carlists) ; Carlos  [578]  (Modern  Carlists) ; Louis 
I,  s.  of  Philip  V;  Louis  t>4°],  s.  of  Philip  V;  Sweden,  Adolphus  Fred- 
ericM82?],  King,  b.  1701,  d.  1771;  Frederick^0!,  s.  of  above;  Sigis- 
mond  III  t8l2b 

Grade  (5).  {Intellect.) 

Anhalt-Zerbs!,  Frederick,  brother  of  Catherine  II;  John,  b.  1621; 
Austria,  Anthony^6!,  s.  of  Leopold  II;  Charles  of  Steirmark[592],  b. 
1540;  Charles f6l°l,  s.  of  above;  Ferdinand,  Grand  Duke  of  Tus- 
canyt^d,  b.  1769;  Ferdinand  I,  Emperortsis];  Ferdinand  d’Este, 
b.  1781;  Leopold  I,  Emperor t6l6l;  Leopold  II,  Emperor^];  Leo- 
pold of  Tyrolt6°7l,  b.  1586,  brother  of  Ferdinand  II;  Matthias  [598], 
Emperor,  b.  1557;  Maximilian,  s.  of  Ferdinand,  Duke  of  Modena, 
b.  1782;  Rhodolph  II,  Emperor  1595];  Bourbon,  Louis  XVI  [39s]; 
Louis [39°];  s.  of  Louis  XV;  Brandenburg,  Charles  Alexander, 
of  Anspach,  d.  1806;  John  Frederick,  of  Anspach,  d.  1686; 
Brunswick,  Anthony  Ulric  bwl,  married  Elizabeth  of  Russia; 
Chariest211!,  b.  1766,  d.  1806;  Lewis  Rudolph tl8sl,  b.  1671;  Maxi- 
milian t2°d,  b.  1752;  Conde,  Louis  III [347] ; Louis  Henry  Joseph [360]; 
Denmark,  Christian  Vb77l;  Christian  VI  [786];  Frederick  VIb9s]; 
Farnese,  Odoardo,  b.  1612,  d.  1646;  Odoardo,  father  of  Elizabeth, 
b.  1666,  d.  1693;  Ranuccio,  father  of  Odoardo  above;  Ranuccio,  s. 
of  the  celebrated  Alexander;  Hesse,  Christian,  b.  1776,  d.  1814,  s.  of 
Charles;  Holstein,  Frederick  IV,  of  Gottorp,  d.  1702;  Mecklenburg, 
Adolphus  Frederick  II  fool;  Charles  Leopold  to2!;  Charles  Lewis  b49l; 
John  Vb'sl;  Nassau,  Ernest  Casimir,  of  Dietz t2s>d;  Henry  Casi- 


Classification  in  Grades 


23 


mir l>97];  b.  1657;  William  Frederick!2^  b.  1652;  Oettingen,  Albert 
Ernest,  father  of  Christina,  wife  of  Cl8sl ; Portugal , Emanuel  the  For- 
tunate [703] ; Ferdinand  l6?*],  s.  of  John  the  Great;  Peter  II bMl;  Prussia, 
Ferdinand  t237l,  brother  of  Frederick  the  Great;  Frederick  William  I, 
Emperor  bsd;  Frederick  William  IVb49];  John  Sigismond l2l8l;  Wil- 
ham  h48],  b.  1783;  Reuss,  Henry  XXIX  b>8!,  of  Ebersdorf;  Portugal, 
John  Vhisl;  John^l,  s.  of  John  the  Great;  Joseph h2IJ  King; 
Peter  h3°]?  I,  of  Brazil;  Savoy,  Charles  Albert,  b.  1798,  d.  1849; 
Humbert,  late  King  of  Italy;  Saxe-Coburg,  Ernest M;  Francis 
Josiahbd;  Saxe-Eisnach,  John  George,  b.  1634,  d.  1686;  Saxe- 
Cotha,  Augustus!81!;  Frederick  I C62b  Frederick  III  [73];  Frederick  IVt83l ; 
Saxe-Meiningen,  Bernard!^!;  Ernest  Lewises],  b.  1672;  Saxony,  Al- 
bert, s.  of  Augustus  II;  Charles  VII,  Emperor,  s.  of  Maximilian 
Emanuel,  of  Bavaria;  Frederick  Christian,  s.  of  Augustus  II;  Maxi- 
milian II,  Emanuel,  b.  1662,  d.  1726  (Bavaria);  Maximilian  Joseph, 
b.  1727,  d.  1777  (Bavaria);  Spain,  Alfonso  IX [451];  Ferdinand  VI [536]; 
Ferdinand  II [569],  of  the  Two  Sicilies;  Ferdinand  Henriques,  grand- 
father of  Ferdinand  the  Catholic;  Philip  II G lS! ; Philip  IV h28!; 
Sweden,  Gustavus  IV,  Adolphus  i83d;  Magnus l80’!,  s.  of  Gustavus 
Vasa;  W tirtemburg,  Charles  Eugene,  b.  1728,  d.  1793. 

Grade  (6).  {Intellect.) 

Anhalt-Zerbst,  Charles  William,  b.  1652;  Christian  August,  b.  1690, 
s.  of  Catherine  II,  of  Russia;  Austria,  Albert t6o°l,  s.  of  Maximilian  II; 
Ferdinand  III [6ll3 ; Ferdinand [585],  b.  1529;  Francis,  Duke  of  Mo- 
dena, s.  of f63<5] ; John t647];  s.  of  Leopold  II;  Joseph!^];  Leopold 
II [634] ; Leopold  William C6i4],  b.  1614;  Louis t649] ; Maximilian  £399],  b. 
1558;  Maximilian  l637l,  b.  1756;  Rudolph i65°];  Bourbon,  Louis,  Duke 
of  Burgundy  [38s] ; Brunswick,  Augustus  b8a]  ; Ernest  Ferdinand  Iwd; 
Rudolph  b 74],  b.  1627;  William  b.  1806;  Coligny,  John,  grand- 
father of  the  Admiral  of  France;  Conde,  Louis  Anthony  Henry  bed 
(d’Enghien);  Denmark,  Frederick  II  [768] j Frederick  IV 1783];  Farnese, 
Ottavio,  d.  1586,  s.  of  Pietro  Luigi;  Hanover,  Edward,  Duke  of 
York  bel;  William  Augustus,  Duke  of  Cumberland  b4l;  Hesse,  Charles, 
s.  of  Frederick  and  Mary,  d.  of  George  II,  of  Great  Britain;  Mecklen- 
burg, Adolphus  Frederick  Ibid;  Adolphus  Frederick  III bd;  Adol- 
phus Frederick  IVbsd;  Christian  Lewis  II b33] ; Frederick  Francis 


24 


Heredity  in  Royalty 

I ['39],  b.  1756;  Medici , Giovanni,  b.  1498;  Nassau,  George  h86!,  of 
Dillenburg,  b.  1562;  John  t285],  of  Siegen,  b.  1561;  John  William 
Friso [302];  Orange,  Louis 126°1,  brother  of  William  the  Silent;  John  1*59], 
brother  of  William  the  Silent;  Palatine,  Frederick  IV  (Simmern); 
Frederick  V (Simmern);  Charles  Lewis,  s.  of  Frederick  V;  John 
Casimir,  b.  1589,  d.  1652  (Zweibruck);  Plantagenet,  Edward  III, 
King  of  England;  Portugal,  Alfonso  II [667] ; Ferdinand,  s.  oflss],  of 
Saxe-Coburg;  Louis  I,  King  [739];  Peter  II,  of  Brazil  [737];  Orleans, 
Anthony,  Montpensier  L15];  Anthony,  Montpensier  [423] ; Ferdi- 
nand [417];  Louis  [419];  Louis  Philippe,  King  [414];  Prussia,  William  1*34], 
brother  of  Frederick  the  Great;  Russia,  Michael [743],  grandfather  of 
Peter  the  Great;  Philibert,  s.  of  Emanuel  I;  Savoy,  Victor  Amadeus 
I;  Victor  Emanuel  II;  Saxe-Coburg,  Frederick  Josiahl47l;  Saxe- 
Eisnach,  John  George  I,  b.  1634,  d.  1686;  Saxe-Gotha,  Augustus l82! ; 
Ernest  II CsS] ; Frederick  lib*];  John  Ernest,  b.  1658;  Saxony,  Charles, 
s.  of  Frederick  Christian;  Frederick  Augustus,  s.  of  Frederick  Chris- 
tian; Spain,  Charles  1111537];  Ferdinand  I,  of  Aragon  [489];  Ferdinand 
IV [471];  Henry  II,  of  Castile [479];  Henry,  s.  of  Francis  de  Paula [554]; 
Peter  the  Cruel  [478]-  peter  II,  of  Aragon,  s.  of  Alfonso  II;  Sweden, 
John  III  [8°6] ; Tour,  F.  Maurice,  brother  of  the  great  Turenne. 

Grade  (7).  ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Ferdinand  II,  Emperor  16°3];  Francis  IV,  Duke  of  Mo- 
dena, s.  oft626!;  Josephll,  Emperor  l62®];  Maximilian  II,  Emperor  16°3] ; 
Bourbon,  Louis  XIV  [379];  Louis  XVIII  [396];  Brunswick,  Anthony 
Ulriclwd;  Augustb73l;  Ernest  Lewises];  Ferdinand,  Albert  I to8!; 
Ferdinand  Albert  II  1*9°];  Ferdinand  l^];  Frederick  Augustuses!; 
George  William,  of  Lunenburg  (Celle);  Coligny,  Odet,  s.  of  Gas- 
pard;  Conde,  Henry  lied;  Henry  Juliuses];  Louis  Joseph^]; 
Conty,  Louis  Francis  [368];  Denmark,  Christian  VIII  [799];  Frederick 
1111776];  Hanover,  Ernest  Augustus,  Elector  Id;  Ernest  Augustus, 
Duke  of  Cumberland  [3°];  Hesse,  Philip  the  Magnanimous;  Lor- 
raine, Charles,  s.  of  Leopold,  b.  1712,  d.  1780;  Leopold,  father  of 
Francis  I,  of  Austria;  Medici,  Ferdinand,  s.  of  Cosimo  the  Great; 
Montmorency,  Henry  lied;  Nassau,  Frederick  William  Charles [3*7], 
b.  1797;  William  I [314],  King;  William  lie6],  King;  Orange,  Wil- 
liam t257],  father  of  William  the  Silent;  Orleans,  Francis,  Joinvillet42d} 


Classification  in  Grades 


25 


b.  1818;  Henry,  Aumaleh22],  b.  1822;  Portugal,  Alfonso  IV,  “the 
Brave”  l682!;  Alfonso  III C673] ; Edward t68^;  Louis b°7],  s.  of  Emanuel; 
John,  s.  of  John  HI;  Peter  H684];  Peter  V,  King [738];  Sancho  It662!; 
Prussia,  Frederick  William  Il>27];  William  I,  Emperor  i25°];  Russia, 
Alexis [745],  father  of  Peter  the  Great;  Savoy,  Charles  Emanuel  III; 
Maurice,  s.  Charles  Emanuel  I ; Thomas,  s.  of  Charles  Emanuel  I ; 
Saxe-Coburg,  Albert [59];  Leopold  I [57],  King  of  the  Belgians;  Saxe- 
Gotha,  Ernest  the  Pious  t6°l;  Saxe-Meiningen,  Anthony  Ulricfo°]; 
Saxony,  Augustus  I,  King  of  Poland;  Spain,  Alfonso  V,  s.  of  Ber- 
mudo  II,  of  Leon;  Alfonso  VII [44  s] , of  Castile;  Alfonso  VIII,  the 
Noble  [45°];  Alfonso  X,  of  Castile  [457];  Alfonso  XI,  of  Castile  [476]; 
Charles t53°],  s.  of  Philip  III;  Ferdinand II [449];  Ferdinand  III,  “the 
Saint”  [445];  Ferdinand is3i],  s.  of  Philip  III;  Henry  III,  of  Castile  k88]; 
John,  nat.  s.  of  Philip  IV;  John  II,  of  Aragon  [406];  Raymond,  Count 
of  Barcelona,  d.  1130;  Sancho  III [446],  0f  Castile,  d.  1158;  Sancho 
IV [465],  of  Castile,  d.  1295;  Sweden,  Charles  X C8l8l ; Charles  XIIH8^]; 
Gustavusl811!,  s.  of  Eric  XIV. 

Grade  (8).  ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Albert,  s.  of  Charles  l643l,  b.  1817;  Charles  V,  Em- 
perori5i4l;  Charles  fod,  b.  1745;  Joseph  I,  Emperor l6j9l;  Brunswick, 
Charles  William  Ferdinand 12021;  William  Adolphus  i2°7] ; Buren,  Max- 
imilian, Count  of;  Burgundy,  Charles  the  Bold;  Coligny,  Francis 
(Dandelot);  Conde,  Henry  I [336];  Louis  I [335];  Conty,  Francis 
Louis ^364] ; Denmark,  Christian  IV [771];  Hesse,  William  the  Wise,  b. 
1545,  d.  1597;  Montmorency,  Anne,  Constable k22!;  Henry  I [324!; 
Nassau,  Frederick [315],  s.  of  William  V;  Orange,  Frederick  Henry  I>77], 
William  IH278];  Orleans,  Philip  IlUml  (Regent);  Palatine,  Ru- 
pert t838l,  famous  cavalier;  Planta genet,  John  of  Gaunt;  Portugal, 
Henry,  Count  of  Burgundy  f6s7];  John  II,  the  Perfect  l7°°] ; Peter  C6s>°], 
s.  of  John  I;  Prussia,  Augustus  Frederick t242l,  nephew  of  Frederick 
the  Great;  Louis  l24d,  nephew  of  Frederick  the  Great;  Russia,  Alex- 
ander I,  Czar;  Constantine,  s.  of  Paul;  Feodor  1742],  great-grand- 
father of  Peter  the  Great;  Nicholas  I,  Czar;  Savoy,  Charles  Emanuel 
I;  Saxe-Gotha,  Ernest  II,  the  Astronomer  18°1;  Spain,  Alfonso  VI  [437]; 
Alfonso  II,  of  Aragon;  Ferdinand  Il429],  b.  1065;  Ferdinand  the 
Catholicism];  James  I the  Conqueror,  of  Aragon;  Peter  III,  the 


26 


Heredity  in  Royalty 

Great,  of  Aragon;  Sancho  II s.  of  Garcia  II;  Swabia,  Manfred, 
King  of  Sicily;  Sweden,  Eric  XIV,  s.  of  Gustavus  Vasa;  Charles 
IX,  s.  of  Gustavus  Vasa;  Charles  XI;  Tour,  Henry,  b.  1555,  Mar- 
shal of  France. 

Grade  (9).  ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Charles l6^],  celebrated  commander;  Maximilian  I 
Emperor;  Bourbon,  Henry  IV [374],  King  of  France;  Coligny,  Gas- 
pard,  great  Admiral  of  France;  Farnese,  Alexander,  celebrated 
general;  Orange,  Maurice!26^;  William  III,  King  of  England t283l; 
Portugal,  Alfonso  I^s8!,  founder  of  Portugal;  Dennis Father  of 
his  Country;  Henry  the  Navigator [69d;  Prussia,  Henryk6!,  strate- 
gist, brother  of  Frederick  the  Great;  Russia,  Peter  the  Great bs3l; 
Savoy,  Eugene,  illustrious  commander;  Saxony,  Maurice,  Elector, 
celebrated  general;  Spain,  Don  John  of  Austria [522],  great  naval 
commander;  Sweden,  Gustavus  III!828];  Charles  XII tg24] ; Tour, 
great  Turenne. 

Grade  (10).  ( Intellect .) 

Conde,  Louis  II  [343],  the  Great  Cond£ ; Orange,  William  the  Silent  l2s8] ; 
Portugal,  John  I,  the  Great  t688l;  Prussia,  Frederick  the  Great  l229l 
Frederick  William,  the  Great  Elector!22^;  Sweden,  Gustavus  Adol- 
phus!81^; Gustavus  Vasa!8°4]. 


Females 

Grade  (1).  ( Intellect .) 

Russia,  Elizabeth  [758],  d.  of  Charles  Leopold ; Saxony,  Anne,  second 
wife  of  William  the  Silent. 

Grade  (2).  ( Intellect .) 

Portugal,  Barbara  b2o];  d.  0f  John  V;  Saxony,  Maria  Josepha,  d. 
of  Charles  VII  (Bavaria);  Spain,  Joanna  the  Mad  ts°8];  Maria 
Louisa [543],  d.  of  Charles  III;  Maria  Theresa [333],  d.  of  Philip  IV. 

Grade  (3).  ( Intellect .) 

Augustenburg,  Caroline,  queen  of  Christian  VIII,  of  Denmark; 
Austria,  Mary  Anne!6isl,  d.  of  Ferdinand  III;  Denmark,  Louisa 
Augusta ^96],  d.  of  Christian  VII;  Mecklenburg,  Louisa,  queen  of 
Frederick  IV,  of  Denmark;  Palatine,  Maria,  queen  of  Frederick 


Classification  in  Grades 


27 


Augustus  III  of  Saxony;  Russia,  Annebs6!,  d.  of  Ivan;  Catherine, 
second  wife  of  Peter  the  Great;  Elizabeth  b66],  d.  of  Peter  the  Great; 
Spain,  Margaret [534],  queen  of  Leopold  I of  Austria;  Sweden,  Ulrica 
Eleanor  !S2s],  d.  of  Charles  XI. 

Grade  (4).  ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Anne P94])  married  Philip  II  of  Spain;  Leopoldine!^], 
d.  of  Francis  II;  Maria  Anne  !62I1,  d.  of  Leopold  I;  Marie  Antoi- 
nette t638l,  married  Louis  XVI;  Maria  Clementina  !64s],  d.  of  Leopold 
II;  Maria  Josepha  t624l,  d.  of  Joseph  I;  Maria  Theresa,  b.  1801,  d. 
1855,  d.  of  Ferdinand  III  of  Tuscany;  Bourbon,  Adelaide  [391],  d.  of 
Louis  XV;  Marie  Louise,  married  Charles  III  of  Parma;  Bruns- 
wick, Elizabeth  bwl,  wife  of  Frederick  the  Great;  Louise  Anneh^l, 
d.  of  Ferdinand  Albert  II;  Conde,  Henriette  [356];  Maria  [35°];  Den- 
mark, Caroline,  d.  of  Frederick  VI;  Hanover,  Anne!11!,  d.  of  George 
II;  Caroline  fa],  d.  of  George  II;  Elizabeth!2!)],  d.  of  George  III; 
Louisab6!,  d.  of  George  II,  Marybsl,  d.  of  George  II;  Hesse,  Fred- 
erica Louisa,  wife  of  Frederick  William  II  of  Prussia;  Mecklenburg, 
Charlotte  Frederica lJ4s]>  b.  1784,  of  Schwerin;  Orleans,  Anneb02!, 
married  Victor  Amadeus  II  of  Savoy;  Louisa  b01!,  queen  of  Charles 
II  of  Spain;  Plantagenet,  Catherine,  wife  of  Henry  III  of  Castile; 
Poland,  Maria,  queen  of  Louis  XV;  Portugal,  Constantina  !68ll, 
married  Ferdinand  IV  of  Castile;  Isabella [720],  d.  of  John  VI;  Maria 
I,  d.  of  Joseph;  Russia,  Catherine  b 55],  d.  of  Ivan;  Lapukhin,  Eu- 
doxia,  first  wife  of  Peter  the  Great;  Miloslavski,  Marie,  first  wife  of 
Alexis;  Savoy,  Maria  Pia,  d.  of  Victor  Emanuel  II;  Saxony,  Amelia, 
queen  of  Charles  III  of  Spain;  Spain,  Anne  of  Austria b27],  married 
Louis  XIII ; Joanna,  queen  of  Henry  II  (Transtamara) ; Leonora  [498J 
queen  of  Edward  I of  Portugal;  Leonora,  queen  of  John  I of  Castile; 
Maria  Louisa  !ss6],  d.  of  Ferdinand  VII;  Mary  of  Aragon  [497],  d.  of 
John  II;  Urracal44i];  Sweden,  Margaret  Lejonhufond,  wife  of  Gus- 
tavus  Vasa;  Wiirtemburg,  Sophia  Dorothea,  married  Paul  of  Russia. 

Grade  (5).  ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Adelaide,  d.  1855,  wife  of  Victor  Emanuel  II;  Eliza- 
beth!598], d.  of  Maximilian  II;  Joanna!393!,  d.  of  Ferdinand  I;  Mar- 
garet!801!, d.  of  Maximilian  II;  Maria  Amelia!025!,  d.  of  Joseph  I; 


28 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Maria  Amelia!633!,  d.  of  Maria  Theresa;  Maria  Louisa!651!,  d.  of 
Francis  II;  Bourbon,  Adelaide!398},  b.  1759,  sister  of  Louis  XVI; 
Christina!378!,  d.  of  Henry  IV;  Louise  (Frances  Marie)  de  Blois!384!, 
d.  of  Louis  XIV;  Louise  (Adelaide),  wife  of  Philip  Egalite;  Louise, 
d.  of  Charles  Ferdinand,  Duke  of  Berry;  Louise  Elizabeth!380!,  d. 
of  Louis  XV;  Maria  Theresa!400!,  d.  of  Louis  XVI;  Victoria!392!,  d. 
of  Louis  XV;  Brandenburg,  Anne,  queen  of  Christian  IV,  of  Den- 
mark; Louise,  married  Ferdinand,  brother  of  Frederick  the  Great; 
Brunswick,  Antoinette  Amelia!188!,  married  Ferdinand  Albert  II; 
Caroline!211!,  d.  of  Charles  William  Ferdinand;  Sophia !198!,d.  of  Ferdi- 
nand Albert  II;  Theresa  Natalia!200!,  d.  of  Ferdinand  Albert  II; 
Buren,  Anne  of  Egmont,  wife  of  William  the  Silent;  Burgundy, 
Constantinia,  queen  of  Alfonso  VI,  of  Castile;  Conde,  Louise!352!,  d. 
of  Louis  III;  Conty,  Louise  Henrietta!389!,  b.  1726;  Hanover,  Au- 
gusta!17!,  sister  of  George  III;  Augusta  Sophia!28!,  d.  of  George  III; 
Charlotte!38!,  d.  of  George  IV;  Mary!33!,  d.  of  George  III;  Sophia 
Dorothea!0!,*  d.  of  George  I;  Hesse,  Charlotte,  queen  of  Christian  V, 
of  Denmark;  Christina,  married  Ferdinand  Albert  I,  of  Brunswick; 
Frederica,  mother  of  Louisa,  Queen  of  Prussia;  Louisa,  b.  1789,  d. 
of  Charles,  married  William,  of  Holstein;  Holstein,  Christina,  queen 
of  Charles  IX,  of  Sweden;  Elizabeth  Juliana,  died  1704,  d.  of  Fred- 
erick I;  Sophia,  b.  1558,  married  John  V,  of  Mecklenburg;  Man- 
cini,  Anne,  wife  of  Amand,  of  Conty;  Mecklenburg,  Charlotte!154!, 
queen  of  George  III,  of  England;  Louise!158!,  Queen  of  Prussia; 
Medici,  Marie,  queen  of  Henry  IV,  of  France;  Orleans,  Amelia,  d. 
of  the  Count  of  Paris;  Charlotte,  de  Valois!407!;  Marie!405!,  Duchess  of 
Berry;  Mercedes,  d.  of7423!,  married  Alfonso  XII,  of  Spain;  Philippa 
de  Beaujolais!410!;  Palatine,  Dorothea  Sophia,  b.  1670,  d.  of  Philip 
William;  Elizabeth,  d.  of  Frederick  IV;  Elizabeth  Charlotte,  b. 
1652,  Duchess  of  Orleans;  Maria  Sophia,  wife  of  Pedro  II,  of  Portu- 
gal; Plantagenet,  Catherine,  wife  of  Henry  III,  of  Castile;  du  Plessis, 
Nicole,  sister  of  Richelieu;  Poland,  Anne,  wife  of  Ferdinand  I, 
Emperor  of  Austria;  Catherine,  wife  of  John  III,  of  Sweden;  Portu- 
gal, Anne!733!,  d.  of  John  VI;  Eleanor!701!,  wife  of  John  II,  of  Portu- 
gal; Isabella,  d.  of  Alfonso  and  granddaughter  of  John  I;  Isabella, 
wife  of  John  II,  of  Castile;  Maria  da  Gloria!734!;  Mary!683!,  d.  of 

* Should  te  in  (7). 


Classification  in  Grades 


29 


Alfonso  IV;  Prussia,  Charlotte!251!,  married  Nicholas  I,  of  Russia; 
Louisa!230!,  sister  of  Frederick  the  Great;  Russia,  Catherine!760!,  d. 
of  Anthony  Ulric  and  Elizabeth  of  Russia;  Natilia,  mother  of  Peter 
the  Great;  Savoy,  Christiana,  d.  of  Victor  Emanuel  I,  d.  1836; 
Joanna,  queen  of  Charles  Emanuel  II;  Saxe-Hilburghausen,  Al- 
bertina, married  Charles  I,  of  Mecklenburg;  Saxony,  Josepha, 
wife  of  Louis  the  Dauphin!390! ; Marie  Anne,  wife  of  Louis  the 
Dauphin!381! ; Spain,  Dulce,  wife  of  Sanchol,  of  Portugal;  Eleanor!513!, 
d.  of  Philip  the  Handsome;  Isabella  lit555!;  Joanna!520!,  d.  of  Charles 
V;  Maria  Amelia!583!,  b.  1782,  married  Louis  Philippe;  Maria  The- 
resa!560], d.  of  Ferdinand  IV  of  Naples;  Mary!008!,  d.  of  Ferdinand 
and  Isabella;  Mary!529!,  d.  of  Philip  III;  Mary  Padilla,  mistress  of 
Peter  I;  Urraca,  wife  of  Alfonso  II,  of  Portugal;  Violanta,  wife  of 
Alfonso  X,  of  Castile;  Swabia,  Elizabeth  (Beatrix),  married  Ferdi- 
nand III,  of  Castile;  Sweden,  Cecelia!810!,  d.  of  Gustavus  Vasa; 
Tour  et  Taxis,  Marie  Augusta,  married  Charles  Alexander,  of  Wiir- 
temburg;  Wiirtemburg,  Mary,  married  Emperor  Paul,  of  Russia. 

Grade  (6) . ( Intellect .) 

Anhalt-Zerbst,  Dorothea,  wife  of  Augustus!173!,  of  Brunswick;  Aus- 
tria, Eleanor!589!,  d.  of  Ferdinand  I;  Elizabeth,  d.  of  Joseph  t844!; 
Mary  Anne  f612!,  d.  of  Ferdinand  II;  Mary  Anne!628!,  d.  of  Maria 
Theresa;  Bourbon,  Elizabeth !375!,  d.  of  Henry  IV;  Elizabeth!399!,  d. 
of  Louis,  Dauphin!390! ; Brunswick,  Augusta!210!,  b.  1764,  d.  of 
Charles  William  Ferdinand;  Charlotte!187!,  married  Alexis,  of 
Russia;  Elizabeth!188!,  wife  of  Charles  VI,  Emperor  ; Elizabeth 
Eleanor!180!,  d.  of  Anthony  Ulric;  Sophia  Dorothea,  married 
George  I,  of  England;  Denmark,  Charlotte  Amelia!787!,  d.  of  Fred- 
erick IV;  Louise!793!,  d.  of  Frederick  V;  Sophia  Magdalena!790!,  d. 
of  Frederick  V;  Hanover,  Amelia!42!,  d.  of  George  II;  Caroline 
Matilda!22!,  sister  of  George  III;  Victoria!37!,  Queen  of  Great  Britain; 
Wilhelmina  Amelia,  married  Joseph  I,  Emperor;  Hesse,  Charlotte 
Amelia,  queen  of  Christian  V,  of  Denmark ; M aille  de  Breze,  Clem- 
ence,  wife  of  Louis  II,  of  Conde;  Leiningen,  Maria  Louisa,  b.  1729, 
grandmother  of  Louisa,  Queen  of  Prussia;  Montmart,  Montespan, 
mistress  of  Louis  XTV;  Montmorency,  Charlotte,  married  Conde; 
Orange,  Albertina!280!,  d.  of  Frederick  Henry;  Emily!270!,  d.  of  Wil- 


3° 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


liara  the  Silent;  Henrietta!281!,  d.  of  Frederick  Henry;  Louise!279!,  d. 
of  Frederick  Henry;  Mary!282!,  d.  of  Frederick  Henry;  Oettingen, 
Christine  Louise,  married  Lewis  Rudolph,  of  Brunswick;  Palatine, 
Marie  Elizabeth,  b.  1721,  d.  Joseph  Charles,  of  Sulzbach,  married 
Charles  Theodore;  Plantagenet , Philippa,  d.  of  John  of  Gaunt; 
Portugal,  Beatrix!706!,  married  Charles  III,  of  Savoy;  Catherine!712!, 
married  Charles  II,  of  England;  Isabella!705!,  married  Emperor 
Charles  V;  Maria!724!,  d.  of  Joseph;  Maria  Francesca!731 1,  d.  of  John 
VI;  Matilda!636!,  d.  of  Sancho  I;  Prussia,  Wilhelminat239!,  niece  of 
Frederick  the  Great;  Savoy,  Marie  Louise,  queen  of  Philip  V,  of 
Spain;  Saxe-Coburg,  Victoria!58!,  mother  of  Queen  Victoria;  Saxe- 
Gotha,  Augusta!78!;  Dorothea  Louise!84!;  Saxe-Meiningen,  Char- 
lotte!93!, wife  of  Ernest  II;  Spain,  Carlotta!549!,  d.  of  Charles  IV; 
Caroline!566!,  Duchess  of  Berry;  Louisa!559!,  d.  of  Philip,  Duke  of 
Parma;  Louisa  Carlotta!567!,  d.  of  Francis  I,  of  the  Two  Sicilies; 
Margaret,  b.  1847,  d.  of  Charles  III,  of  Parma;  Maria  Christina!568!, 
queen  of  Ferdinand  VII;  Mary!519!,  d.  of  Charles  V;  Mary,  wife  of 
Peter  II,  of  Aragon;  Stuart,  Elizabeth,  d.  of  James  I,  of  England. 

Grade  (7).  ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Caroline!635!,  d.  of  Maria  Theresa;  Margaret!521!,  nat.  d. 
of  Charles  V;  Maria  Elizabeth !820!,  d.  of  Leopold  I;  Mary,  Queen 
of  Hungary!516!,  d.  of  Philip  the  Handsome;  Brandenburg,  Sophia 
Magdalene,  queen  of  Christian  VI,  of  Denmark;  Brunswick,  Eliza- 
beth Christina!206! ; Sibylla  Ursula!175!,  d.  of  Augustus;  Burgundy, 
Mary,  d.  of  Charles  the  Bold;  Coligny,  Louise,  married  William  the 
Silent;  Conde,  Louise  Adelaide!381 1,  d.  of  Louis  Joseph;  Denmark, 
Ulrica  Eleanor!782!,  d.  of  Frederick  III;  Farnese,  Elizabeth,  queen 
of  Philip  V,  of  Spain;  Flanover,  Charlotte  Augusta !26!,  d.  of  George 
III;  Plolstein,  Joanna  Elizabeth,  mother  of  Catherine  II,  of  Russia; 
Masovia,  Cymburga,  wife  of  Ernest,  of  Austria;  Mecklenburg,  Sophia, 
d.  of  Ulric,  married  Frederick  II,  of  Denmark;  Sophia  Elizabeth!162!, 
wife  of  Augustus,  of  Brunswick;  Orange,  Louisa  Juliana!271!,  d.  of 
William  the  Silent;  Orleans,  Louise  Adelaide!406!,  d.  of  Philip  (Re- 
gent); Portugal,  Eleanor!697!,  wife  of  Frederick  III  (the  emperor); 
Maria,  d.  of!709!,  wife  of  Alexander  Farnese;  Maria  Benedictina!726!, 
d.  of  Joseph;  Maria  Theresa!728!,  d.  of  John  VI;  Prussia,  Frederica 


Classification  in  Grades 


3i 


Sophia!228!,  of  Baireuth,  sister  of  Frederick  the  Great;  Reuss,  Au- 
gusta!111!,  d.  of  Henry  XXIV;  Russia,  Anne,  eldest  d.  of  Peter  the 
Great;  Saxony,  Marie  Antoinette,  b.  1724,  d.  of  Charles  VII  (Bava- 
ria); Solms,  Amelia,  wife  of  Frederick  Henry,  of  Orange;  Spain, 
Beatrix,  queen  of  Alfonso  III,  of  Portugal;  Berengaria,  of  Barcelona, 
wife  of  Alfonso  VII;  Catherine!517],  d.  of  Philip  the  Handsome; 
Elizabeth!537!,  queen  of  Joseph  II,  of  Austria;  Leonora  de  Guzman, 
mistress  of  Alfonso  XI,  of  Castile;  Marie  Antoinette!584],  queen  of 
Ferdinand  VII,  of  Spain;  Sancha,  queen  of  Ferdinand  I,  the  Great; 
Violanta,  queen  of  James  I,  of  Aragon;  Stolburg,  Juliana,  mother  of 
William  the  Silent;  Sweden,  Catherine,  d.  of  Charles  IX;  Waldeck, 
Amelia,  b.  1640,  d.  1696. 

Grade  (8).  {Intellect.) 

Austria,  Maria  Christina!630!,  d.  of  Maria  Theresa;  Bourbon, 
Elizabeth!409!  (Orleans) ; Henrietta !378!,  d.  of  Henry  IV ; Branden- 
burg, Caroline,  queen  of  George  II,  of  Great  Britain;  Brunswick, 
Juliana!201!,  queen  of  Frederick  V,  of  Denmark;  Sophia  Amelia,  d. 
of  George  of  Lunenburg;  d'Ernier,  Eleanor,  wife  of  George  of 
Celle;  Hanover,  Sophia  Charlotte!5!,  Queen  of  Prussia;  Portugal, 
Theresa!684!,  d.  of  Alfonso  I;  Palatine,  Eleanor,  d.  of  Philip  William, 
and  wife  of  Leopold  I,  of  Austria;  Prussia,  Charlotte!231!,  sister  of 
Frederick  the  Great;  Saxe-Meiningen,  Louise  Dorothea!91!;  Spain, 
Berengaria,  queen,  d.  of  Alfonso  the  Noble;  Elvira,  wife  of  Bermudo 
II;  Isabella t524!,  d.  of  Philip  II;  Joanna  Henriquez,  mother  of  Ferdi- 
nand the  Catholic;  Mary,  queen  of  Sancho  IV;  Saint  Elizabeth, 
queen  of  Dennis,  of  Portugal;  Theresa i444!,  nat.  d.  Alfonso  VI,  of 
Castile;  Swabia,  Constance,  d.  Manfred,  King  of  Sicily,  married 
Peter  III,  of  Aragon ; Sweden,  Sophia!831!,  sister  of  Gustavus  III. 

Grade  (9) . ( Intellect .) 

Austria,  Margaret!512!,  d.  of  Maximilian  I,  of  Austria;  Maria  The- 
resa!828]; Brunswick,  Anne  Amelia!204!,  Duchess  of  Weimar;  Hanau, 
Amelia,  d.  of  Louis  II  ( = Hesse-Cassel);  Navarre,  Jeanne  d’Albret; 
Palatine,  Elizabeth,  d.  of  Frederick  V;  Prussia,  Amelia!235!,  sister 
of  Frederick  the  Great;  Russia,  Sophia!748!,  half-sister  of  Peter  the 
Great;  Spain,  Blanche  of  Castile,  married  Louis  VIII,  of  France; 


32 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Medina-Sidonia,  Louisa,  queen  of  John  IV,  of  Portugal;  Sweden, 
Christina!817!,  d.  of  Gustavus  Adolphus;  Tremouille,  Charlotte, 
Countess  Derby,  granddaughter  of  William  the  Silent. 

Grade  (io).  ( Intellect .) 

D’Angouleme,  Margaret  of  Navarre;  Anhalt,  Catherine  II,  of  Rus- 
sia; Bourbon,  Anne,  Mademoiselle,  Montpensier,  d.  oft377!;  Condi, 
Annet342!,  Duchess  of  Longueville;  Palatine,  Sophia  Electress,  d.  of 
Frederick  V;  Prussia,  Louisa  Ulrica t233!,  Queen  of  Sweden;  Spain, 
Isabella  It494!,  of  Castile. 

Grading  Virtues 

In  the  tables  below  we  see  the  frequency  in  each  of 
the  ten  grades  for  moral  qualities,  the  males  and  females 
having  been  studied  separately. 

Females 


Grades 

(i) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Frequency 

7 

8 

18 

25 

59 

46 

26 

24 

18 

6 

237 

Males 


Grades 

(0 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Frequency 

9 

*9 

35 

5 1 

75 

53 

52 

4i 

24 

12 

37i 

The  term  “ morality  ” is  used  in  its  widest  meaning,  and 
under  this  head  are  included  all  the  qualities  which  may 
count  as  virtues.  Amiability  and  kindliness  are  included, 
so  that  only  those  who  have  received  praise  for  many 
good  qualities  can  appear  in  the  higher  grades.  The 
highest  grade  (io)  is  for  those  only  who  have  been  known 
as  altruists,  or  reformers,  or  have  devoted  their  lives  to 
charity,  or  other  noble  aims  for  the  welfare  of  their  coun- 
try. It  has  been  the  aim  of  the  writer  to  take  only  the 
opinions  of  others,  following  the  biographical  diction- 
aries and  standard  histories  as  far  as  possible. 


Grading  Virtues 


33 


It  is,  of  course,  difficult,  indeed  impossible,  for  any 
one  to  arrange  people  according  to  their  reputed  virtues 
in  a perfectly  satisfactory  manner.  It  is,  however,  not 
as  difficult  as  it  might  at  first  sight  seem,  especially  if 
one  remembers  that  by  far  the  majority  are  to  be  in  the 
mediocre  grades,  and  the  presence  of  some  little  vice  or 
a reasonable  array  of  good  qualities  is  not  to  place  a 
man  in  an  extreme  grade  in  either  direction.  In  the 
case  of  the  women  the  standard  proved  to  be  such  that 
it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  make  things  balance,  to 
place  all  excellent,  quiet,  and  negative  characters  in  a 
grade  as  low  as  (5)  and  reserve  the  upper  grades  only  for 
those  who  have  had  a special  reputation  for  devoting 
their  time  to  some  form  of  altruism.  Those  who  are 
familiar  with  history  and  court  memoirs  may  see  how 
far  the  grading  suits  their  particular  approval,  and  most 
who  read  the  list  carefully  will  doubtless  object  to  char- 
acters here  and  there;  but  I am  sure  that  much  of  this 
will  be  found  due  to  some  personal  bias,  and  an  ac- 
quaintance with  all  the  characters  would  result  in  a 
scheme  not  very  different  from  the  present.  It  is  to  be 
remembered  that  they  are  not  arranged  by  the  writer 
from  a vague  idea  of  their  worth  drawn  from  reading 
accounts  of  their  lives,  but  are  graded  purely  on  a basis 
of  the  adjectives  used  in  describing  their  traits  by  the 
best  authorities,  several  different  sources  of  information 
having  been  used  for  verification.  In  any  case  errors 
would  likely  balance. 

The  three  lowest  grades  have  been  reserved  for  the 
distinctly  vicious,  those  described  as  debauched,  depraved, 
licentious,  dissipated,  cruel,  or  extremely  unprincipled.  In 
the  three  upper  grades  we  find  such  descriptions  as 


34 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


“Adored  by  the  people  as  a saint,”*  “Gave  herself  up 
entirely  to  works  of  piety  and  charity, ”f  “Heroic  vir- 
tues and  rare  abnegations,”  J “By  his  well-known  devo- 
tion to  the  best  interests  of  the  country  he  secured  the 
confidence  and  esteem  of  all  classes,”  § “Respect  and  ven- 
eration which  the  Russians  entertained  for  his  character.”  || 

In  the  list  following,  the  persons  within  each  grade  are 
given  in  the  alphabetical  order  of  the  country  or  family 
name,  which  is  followed  by  the  Christian  name.  When 
the  family  name  is  omitted,  it  is  the  same  as  the  preced- 
ing. The  numbers  in  parentheses  which  stand  before  the 
names  are  the  intellectual  grades  in  each  case,  and  those 
following,  without  brackets,  refer  to  the  total  number  of 
children  who  reached  adult  years. 

Thus  (/)  Brunswick , Ivan[795i,  s.  of  Anthony  Ulric,  o; 
means  that  he  was  by  birth  of  the  house  of  Brunswick, 
that  he  stands  in  grade  (/)  for  intellect,  and  had  no  adult 
child.  The  intellectual  grades  are  here  coupled  with  the 
moral,  and  the  total  number  of  adult  children  given, 
for  the  sake  of  solving  the  problems  contained  in  Chap- 
ter XVII,  “The  Correlation  between  Mental  and  Moral 
Qualities.”  A few  have  numbers  in  square  brackets 
attached  to  assist  in  identification. 

Grade  (i).  (Virtues.) 

( i ) Brunswick,  Ivaifi759],  s.  of  Anthony  Ulric,  o;  (j)  Conde, 
Charles^355!  de  Chari ois,  s.  of  Louis  III,  o;  (2)  Denmark,  Christian 
Vllt792],  2;  (5)  Farnese,  Ranuccio,  1569-1622,  ?;  (/)  Portugal, 

* Christine,  dau.  of  Victor  Emanuel  I.,  of  Sardinia,  and  first  wife  of  Fer- 
dinand II,  of  Sicily. 

t Anne,  de  Mancini,  wife  of  Amand,  Prince  of  Conty. 

t Peter  II,  of  Portugal  and  Brazil,  1825-1891. 

§ Leopold  I,  of  Belgium. 

II  Feodor,  the  first  Romanoff. 


Classification  in  Grades 


35 


Alfonso  VIE713!,  o;  (2)  Russia,  Alexis!764!,  s.  of  Peter  the  Great,  1; 
(2)  Spain,  Don  Carlos!323!,  s.  of  Philip  II,  o;  (6)  Peter  the  Cruel!478!, 
6;  (1)  Philip!544!,  s.  of  Charles  III,  o; (2.56)  Average,  1.88. 

Grade  (2).  (Virtues.) 

(2)  Bourbon,  Gaston!377!  d’Orleans,  s.  of  Henry  IV,  3;  (3)  Louis 
XV!388!,  King  of  France,  6;  (2)  Hanover,  Frederick  Henry!21!,  b.  of 
George  III,  o;  (4)  George  IVf23!,  King  of  Great  Britain,  1;  (4) 
Maille,  Urbain,  1597-1650,  2;  ( 8 ) Medici,  Cosimo  the  Great,  5; 
(4)  Francesco,  1541-1587,  4;  (2)  Portugal,  Cardinal  Henry,  s. 
Emanuel,  I,  o;  (4)  Don  Miguel,  s.  John  VI,  7;  (8)  Russia,  Con- 
stantine, s.  Paul  I,  o;  (3)  Paul  I,  s.  Catherine  II,  9;  (2)  Spain, 

Don  Balthazar,  s.  Philip  IV,  o;  (1)  Charles  II!535!,  o;  (2)  Ferdi- 
nand!553!, Duke  of  Parma,  1751-1802,  4;  (5)  Ferdinand  II,  of  the 
Two  Sicilies,  7;  (3)  Francis  I,  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  12;  (3)  Henry  IV, 

of  Castile,  o;  (5)  Philip  II!518!,  4;  (5)  Philip  IV!528!,  4;  (3-68) 

Average,  3.58. 

Grade  (3).  (Virtues.) 

(7)  Austria,  Francis  IV,  Duke  of  Modena,  4;  (6)  Francis  V, 
Duke  of  Modena,  o;  (5)  Rudolph  II,  Emperor,  o;  (2)  Bourbon, 
Charles.  Duke  of  Berry!387!,  s.  of  Louis  the  Dauphin,  o;  (3)  Louis 
XIII,  King  of  France,  2;  (4)  Brandenburg,  Charles  William,  d. 
1712,  1;  (7)  Conde,  Henry  Julius,  s.  the  Great  Conde,  4;  (7)  Han- 
over, Ernest  Augustus,  father  of  George  I,  6;  (3)  Frederick,  Duke  of 
York,  s.  George  III,  o;  (3)  Frederick,  Prince  of  Wales,  s.  George 
II,  o;  (3)  George  II,  King  of  Great  Britain,  7;  (6)  WTilham  Augus- 
tus, s.  of  George  II,  o;  (5)  Mecklenburg,  Charles  Leopold,  married 
Empress  of  Russia,  1;  (4)  Orleans,  Louis  Philippe  (Egalite),  4; 
(8)  Philip!403!  (Regent),  9;  (7)  Portugal,  Alfonso  III,  6;  (7)  Alfonso 
IV,  the  Brave,  2;  (3)  Ferdinand,  s.  Peter  the  Rigorous,  2;  (7)  Prus- 
sia, Frederick  William  I,  10;  (p)  Russia,  Peter  the  Great,  3;  (2) 
Peter  III,  1;  (7)  Saxony,  Augustus  I,  the  Strong,  2;  (8)  Spain, 
Charles  V,  Emperor  of  Austria,  5;  (6)  Ferdinand  IV,  of  Castile,  2; 
(2)  Ferdinand  I,  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  7;  (2)  Ferdinand  VII,  King, 
1784-1833,  2;  (2)  Francis  II,  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  1;  (6)  Henry, 
1823-1870,  s.  of  Francis  de  Paula,  5;  (6)  Henry  II  (Transtamara), 
i333-i379j  9 ; (5)  James  I,  of  Aragon  (the  Conqueror),  5;  (3)  John  I, 


36 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


of  Castile,  2;  (7)  John  II,  of  Aragon,  4;  ( 4 ) Louis,  s.  of  Philip  V 
and  Marie,  o;  (7)  Sancho  IV,  of  Castile,  8;  ( 6 ) Sweden,  John  III, 
2; (5-20)  Average,  3.48. 

Grade  (4).  (Virtues.) 

Anhalt,  Frederick  Augustus,  b.  1734,  d.  1793,  o;  (7)  Austria, 
Rudolph,  s.  of  Francis  Joseph,  o;  (9)  Bourbon,  Henry  IV!372!,  9; 
(7)  Louis  XIV!379!,  6;  (2)  Philip  V,  of  Spain  !3881,  8;  (4)  Brunswick, 
Frederick  William!215!,  2;  (6)  Denmark,  Frederick  II,  6;  (3) 
George!781!,  married  Anne,  Queen  of  England,  o;  (4)  d’Este,  Her- 
cules, b.  1727,  d.  1803,  2;  (10)  Conde,  Louis  II,  the  Great!343!,  1; 

(5)  Louis  Henry  Joseph!380!,  1 ; (4)  Hanover,  Edward!19!,  brother 
of  George  III,  o;  (7)  Ernest  Augustus!30!,  s.  of  George  III,  1;  (3) 
William  IV!25!,  King  of  England,  o;  (3)  Holstein,  Charles  Frederick, 
s.  of  Frederick  IV,  1;  (6)  Medici,  Giovanni,  b.  1498,  d.  1526,  1; 
(4)  Orange,  Philip  William,  s.  of  William  the  Silent,  o;  (3)  William 
y[3i2],  2;  (4)  Orleans,  Louis  Philippe!411!,  b.  1725,  d.  1785,  2;  (8) 
Palatine,  Rupert,  the  famous  cavalier,  o;  (6)  Portugal,  Alfonso  II,  4; 

(4)  Alfonso  V,  2;  (3)  Alfonso,  s.  of  John  II,  o;  (4)  Anthony,  nat. 
s.  of  Don  Louis,  6;  (3)  John  III!704!,  2;  (5)  John,  s.  of  John  I,  2; 

(5)  Peter  IP714!,  9;  (3)  Peter  III!722!,  3;  (4)  Sancho  lit672!,  o;  (10) 
Prussia,  Frederick  the  Great!229!,  o;  (4)  Frederick  William  II!238!,  7; 

(6)  William!234!,  2;  (8)  Savoy,  Charles  Emanuel  I,  the  Great,  9; 

(7)  Spain,  Alfonso  VII,  the  Emperor,  4;  (7)  Alfonso  X,  of  Castile, 

6;  (7)  Alfonso  XI,  of  Castile!476!,  5;  (3)  Francis  d’Assis,  ?;  (2)  Fran- 
cis de  Paula!554!,  IO;  (8)  Ferdinand  the  Catholic!505!,  of  Aragon,  4; 
(3)  Don  John!579!,  s.  of  Carlos,  the  Pretender,  2;  (6)  Peter  II,  of 
Aragon,  1 ; (3)  Philip  the  Handsome!511!,  6 ; (3)  Philip  of  Parma!539!, 
3;  (9)  Sweden,  Charles  XII,  o;  (7)  Charles  XIII,  o;  (8)  Eric  XIV, 
1;  (4)  Frederick!830!,  s.  of  Adolphus  Frederick,  o;  (9)  Gustavus 
III,  1;  (5)  Gustavus  IV,  4;  (4)  Sigismond  III,  1;  (5)  Wurteniburg, 
Charles  II,  Eugene,  d.  1793,  o; (5.27)  Average,  2.49. 

Grade  (5).  (Virtues.) 

(4)  Austria,  Charles  VI,  Emperor!622!,  2;  (5)  Ferdinand  d’Este, 
s.  of!636!,  o;  (4)  Francis!827!,  husband  of  Maria  Theresa,  10;  (6) 


Classification  in  Grades 


37 


Leopold  III634!,  3:3 ; (5)  Matthias,  Emperor!598!,  o;  (g)  Maximilian  I, 
Emperor!510!,  4;  (3)  Rainer!648!,  4;  ( 4 ) Bourbon,  Anthony,  King  of 
Navarre!371!,  2;  (3)  Charles  X,  of  France!397!,  2;  (7)  Louis  XVIII!396!, 
o;  (2)  Louis  !381!,  s.  of  Louis  XIV,  1;  (3)  Philip,  Duke  of  Orleans, 
s.  of  Louis  XIV,  4;  (7)  Brunswick,  Anthony  Ulric  l177!,  6;  ( 6 ) Au- 
gustus William,  s.  of  above,  o;  (5)  Lewis  Rudolph!185!,  3;  (8)  Bur- 
gundy, Charles  the  Bold,  1;  ( 8 ) Coligny,  Francis,  “Dandelot,”  o; 

(7)  Conde,  Henry  II!341!,  3;  (3)  Louis  III!347!,  g-  (4)  Conty,  Ar- 
mandl344!,  s.  of  Henry  II,  Conde,  2;  (5)  Denmark,  Christian  V,  4; 
(5)  Christian  VI,  2;  (7)  Frederick  III,  7;  (3)  Frederick  V,  5;  (3) 
Frederick,  Crown  Prince,  s.  of  above.  4;  (p)  Farnese,  Alexander 
(celebrated  general);  (5)  Odoardo,  b.  1612,  d.  1646;  (5)  Holstein, 
Frederick  IV,  1;  ( 4 ) Hanover,  George  I,  King  of  Great  Britain,  2; 

(8)  Lancaster,  John  of  Gaunt,  10;  (4)  Medici,  Cosimo  II,  7;  (8) 
Montmorency,  Anne,  Constable,  9;  (5)  N assau-Dietz,  Ernest  Casi- 
mirl291!,  s.  of  John,  2;  (7)  William  I,  King!314!,  3;  (b)  Orleans,  Louis 
Philippe,  King!414!,  8;  (p)  Portugal,  Alfonso  I!658!,  3;  (3)  Alfonso  !6781, 
s.  of  Alfonso  III,  4;  (9)  Dennis!675!,  5;  (8)  John  IB700!,  2;  (4)  John 
IV!711!,  Io;  (3)  John  VI!727],  8;  (7)  Peter  I!684!,  6;  (7)  Sancho  It662!, 
14;  (3)  Sebastian,  grandson  of  John  III,  o;  (3)  Prussia,  Frederick  I, 
King!226!,  2;  ( 10 ) Frederick  William!224!,  the  Great  Elector,  8;  (8) 
Lewis  Ferdinand i241!,  o;  (8)  Russia,  Alexander  I,  o;  ( 4 ) Alexis!763!, 
s.  of  Anthony  Ulric,  o;  (l)  Feodor!749!,  half-brother  of  Peter  the 
Great,  o;  ( 4 ) Miloslavski,  Ilia,  ?;  ( 4 ) Nariskin,  Cyril,  ?;  ( 8 ) Nicho- 
las I,  7;  ( 4 ) Peter!762!,  s.  of  Anthony  Ulric,  o;  (5)  Savoy,  Charles  Al- 
bert, b.  1798,  d.  1824,  2;  (5)  Humbert  I,  King  of  Italy,  1;  (7) 
Thomas,  s.  of  Charles  Emanuel  I,  4;  ( 4 ) Victor  Amadeus  III,  9; 

(4)  Victor  Emanuel  I,  4;  (6)  Victor  Emanuel  II,  King  of  Italy,  4; 

(5)  Saxe-Coburg,  Ernest  It54!,  Q;  (4)  Ernest  Frederick!43!,  3;  (5) 

Saxony,  Maximilian  Emanuel,  b.  1662  (Bavaria),  6;  (5)  Maximilian 
III,  Joseph  (Bavaria),  o;  ( 8 ) Spain,  Alfonso  VB437!,  4;  (5)  Alfonso 
IX!451!,  3;  (3)  Alfonso  XII,  3;  (4)  Alfonso,  s.  of  Don  John  (Modern 
Carlists),  o;  ( 4 ) Louis  Anthony!540!,  s.  0f  Philip  V,  3;  (2)  John  II, 
of  Castile!490!,  2 ; (2)  Philip  III!526!,  3 ; (7)  Sweden,  Charles  X,  1 ; 
(8)  Charles  XI,  3;  (7)  Gustavus,  s.  of  Eric  XIV,  o;  (5)  Magnus,  s. 
of  Gustavus  Vasa,  o; (5.38)  Average,  3.63. 


38 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Grade  (6).  (Virtues.) 

(2)  Austria,  Ernest!590!,  s.  of  Maximilian  II,  o;  (z)  Ferdinand 
It632!,  b.  1793,  d.  1875,  o;  (4)  Ferdinand!036!,  Duke  of  Modena,  7; 
(2)  Francis  Charles!656!,  father  of  present  emperor,  4;  (6)  Joseph!644!, 
b.  1776,  d.  1847,  5;  (5)  Leopold  II,  of  Tuscany,  b.  1797,  d.  1870,  5; 

(6)  Lewis!849!,  s.  of  Leopold  II,  o;  (6)  Maximilian i637!,  s.  of  Maria 
Theresa,  o;  (5)  Maximilian,  b.  1782,  d.  1863,  s.  of  Ferdinand, 
Duke  of  Modena,  o;  (6)  Maximilian!599!,  s.  of  Maximilian  II,  o; 

(5)  Bourbon,  Louis,  Dauphin!390!,  s.  of  Louis  XV,  5;  (8)  Brunswick, 
Charles  William  Ferdinand!202 !,  6;  (8)  Conde,  Henry  I!336!,  3;  (8) 
Louis  I!335!,  4;  (7)  Denmark,  Christian  VIII,  1;  (6)  Frederick  IV,  2; 

(6)  Farnese,  Ottavio,  d.  1586,  4;  (3)  Hanover,  William  Henry!20!, 
brother  of  George  III,  2;  (5)  Mecklenburg,  John  V,  father  of  Adolph 
Frederick  I,  3;  (8)  Montmorency,  Henry  I,  5;  (8)  Orange,  William 
II!278!,  I;  (75)  Orleans,  Ferdinand!417!,  2;  (7)  Francis!421!,  Joinville,  2; 

(6)  Louis!419!,  Nemours,  4;  (6)  Palatine,  Frederick  IV,  4;  (6)  Pala- 
tine-Zweibriick,  John  Casimir,  b.  1589,  d.  1652,  5;  (5)  Portugal, 
John  V!715!,  5;  (5)  Peter  I,  of  Brazil!730!,  s.  of  John  VI,  5;  (8)  Prussia, 
Augustus!242!,  nephew  of  Frederick  the  Great,  o;  (4)  Frederick 
William  III!244!,  7;  (5)  Frederick  William  IV!249!,  o;  (3)  George  Wil- 
liam of  Brandenburg!219!,  3;  (5)  John  Sigismond!218!,  4;  (6)  William 
I,  Emperor!250!,  2;  (5)  Reuss,  Henry  XXIX!98!,  13;  (4)  Henry 
XXIV!102!,  4;  (z)  Russia,  Ivan!751!,  half-brother  of  Peter  the  Great,  3; 

(7)  Savoy,  Charles  Emanuel  III,  5;  (3)  Charles  Emanuel  IV,  4;  (5) 
Saxe-Coburg,  Francis  Josiah!42!,  5;  (6)  Saxony,  Charles,  s.  of 
Frederick  Christian,  o;  (6)  Frederick  Augustus,  s.  of  Frederick 
Christian,  1;  (5)  Frederick  Christian,  1722-1763,  6;  (7)  Spain, 
Alfonso  V,  s.  of  Bermudo  II,  ?;  (6)  Charles  III!537 1,7;  (3)  Charles 
IV!545!,  7;  (6)  Ferdinand  I,  of  Aragon !489!,  5;  (7)  Ferdinand,  Cardi- 
nal l531!,  s.  of  Philip  III,  o;  (7)  Henry  III!488!,  of  Castile,  3;  (<?) 
John,  Don  John  of  Austria!522!,  o;  (8)  Sancho  III,  the  Great!426!,  3; 

(8)  Swabia,  Manfred,  King  of  Sicily,  1;  (8)  Sweden,  Charles  IX, 

2; (5-62)  Average,  3.25. 

Grade  (7).  (Virtues.) 

(6)  Anhalt,  Christian  Augustus,  2;  (6)  Austria,  Albert!600!,  s.  of 
Maximilian  II,  o;  (5)  Anthony!648!,  0;  (7)  Ferdinand  II,  4;  (6) 


Classification  in  Grades 


39 


Ferdinand P85],  4;  (5)  Ferdinand  III,  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany,  b. 
1 769,  3;  ( 4 ) Francis  II,  Emperor!640!,  d.  1835,  7;  (8)  Joseph  IP19!,  2; 
(7)  Joseph  lit629],  o;  (6)  Leopold  William!614!,  s.  of  Ferdinand  II,  o; 
(7)  Brunswick,  Augustus!173!,  1579-1666,  6;  (6)  Ernest  Ferdi- 

nand!191!, 1682-1746,  5;  (7)  George  William  of  Celle,  d.  1705,  1; 
(6)  Conde,  Louis  Anthony  Henry!362!,  Enghien,  d.  1804,  o;  (7)  Conty, 
Francis!368!,  1717-1776,  1;  (5)  Farnese,  Odoardo,  s.  of  Ranuccio,  d. 
1693,  1;  (4)  Hanover,  Augustus!31!,  s.  of  George  III,  2;  (6)  Charles, 
s.  of  Ernest  Augustus!1!,  o;  (3)  William,  Duke  of  Gloucester!35!, 
1776-1834,  o;  (6)  Hesse,  Charles,  s.  of  Frederick  and  Mary,  d.  of 
George  II,  of  England,  5;  (8)  William  IV,  the  Wise,  5;  (7)  Lor- 
raine, Charles,  brother  of  Francis  I,  of  Austria,  o;  (7)  Mecklen- 
burg, Adolphus  Frederick  II!130!,  3 ; ( 6 ) Adolphus  Frederick  III!147!,  o; 

(6)  Orange,  Louis,  brother  of  William  the  Silent,  o;  (8)  Frederick 
Henry!277!,  s.  of  William  the  Silent,  5;  (6)  Orleans,  Anthony!423!, 
Montpensier,  7;  (7)  Henry!422!,  Aumale,  1;  ( 4 ) Louis!408!,  s.  of 
Philip  the  Regent,  1;  ( 6 ) Palatine,  Frederick  V,  8;  (5)  Portugal, 
Emanuel  the  Fortunate!703!,  7;  ( 6 ) Ferdinand,  s.  of!55!,  and  husband 
of  Maria  da  Gloria,  4;  (7)  John,  d.  1554,  s.  of  John  III,  o;  ( 6 ) 
Louis  It739!,  King,  2;  ( 8 ) Peter!690!,  s.  of  John  I,  6;  (5)  Prussia, 
Ferdinand C237!,  o;  (6)  Savoy,  Victor  Amadeus  I,  3;  {4)  Victor  Ama- 
deus II,  4;  {4)  Saxe-Coburg,  Ferdinand!55!,  d.  1851,  4;  (5)  Saxe- 
Goiha,  Frederick  P62!,  d.  1691,  5;  (5)  Saxe-Meiningen,  Bernard  the 
Pious!64!,  6;  (5)  Saxony,  Albert,  s.  of  Augustus  II,  o;  ( 4 ) Augustus  II, 
s.  of  Augustus  I,  10;  (5)  Charles  VII,  Emperor  (Bavaria),  4;  (7) 
Spain,  Alfonso  VIII,  the  Noble!450!,  5;  (7)  Carlos,  s.  of  Philip  III,  o; 
(3)  Carlos!552!,  first  pretender,  3;  (7)  Ferdinand  II,  of  Leon!449!,  1; 

(7)  Ferdinand  III!453!,  7;  (3)  Ferdinand  VP536!,  o;  (5)  Frederick 
Henriques,  grandfather  of  Ferdinand  the  Catholic,  ?;  ( 4 ) Sweden, 

Adolphus  Frederick  of  Holstein  (King),  4; (5-85)  Average, 

2.90. 


Grade  (8).  (Virtues.) 

(6)  Anhalt,  Charles  William,  1652-1718,  2;  (7)  Austria,  Maxi- 
milian II,  8;  (6)  Rudolph,  s.  of  Leopold  II,  o;  (6)  Bourbon,  Duke 
of  Burgundy,  grandson  of  Louis  XIV,  1 ; (5)  Louis  XVI,  1 ; (6) 
Louis  John  de  Penthievre,  2;  (5)  Brunswick,  Anthony  Ulric,  1714- 


40 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


75,  5;  (3)  Charles,  1713-80,  8;  (7)  Ernest  Lewis,  1718-88,  o;  (7) 
Ferdinand  Albert  I,  6;  (7)  Frederick  Augustus,  1740-1805,  o;  (p) 
Coligny,  Gaspard  (the  great  admiral);  (7)  Conde,  Louis  Joseph,  2; 
(8)  Denmark,  Christian  IV,  3;  (5)  Frederick  VI,  2;  (5)  Farnese, 
Ranuccio  II,  2;  (3)  Hanover,  Edward,  Duke  of  Kent,  s.  of  George 
III,  1 ; (5)  George  III,  13;  (5)  Mecklenburg,  Adolphus,  1738-94,  o; 
(5)  Charles  Lewis,  1708-1752,  6;  ( 8 ) Medici,  Ferdinand  I,  4;  ( 4 ) 
Nassau,  William  IV,  2;  (7)  William  II  (King),  4;  (7)  Frederick 
William,  b.  1797,  2;  (p)  Orange,  Maurice  (celebrated  general),  2; 
(7)  William  the  Elder,  father  of  William  the  Silent,  12;  (p)  Wil- 
liam III,  King  of  Great  Britain,  o;  (6)  Orleans,  Anthony,  Mont- 
pensier,  brother  of  Louis  Philippe,  o;  (6)  Poland,  Ladislaus,  s.  of 
Casimir,  2;  (7)  Portugal,  Edward  I,  6;  ( 8 ) Henry  of  Burgundy,  d. 
1114,  4;  ( 10 ) John  I,  “the  Great,”  8;  (5)  Joseph,  s.  of  John  V,  4; 
(7)  Louis,  s.  of  Emanuel,  I;  ( 4 ) Savoy,  Charles  Emanuel  II;  (6) 
Saxe-Coburg,  Frederick  II,  9;  (5)  Saxe-Gotha,  Frederick  IV,  o; 

(7)  Saxe-Meiningen,  Anthony  Ulric,  5;  (p)  Saxony,  Maurice  (cele- 
brated Elector),  1;  (8)  Spain,  Ferdinand  I,  5;  (7)  Sancho  III,  1; 
(6.44)  Average,  3.44. 

Grade  (p).  (Virtues.) 

Austria,  Charles  (commander  against  Napoleon),  6;  (5)  Ferdi- 
nand I,  d.  1564,  13;  (6)  Ferdinand  III,  6;  (5)  Leopold  I,  6;  (5) 
Brandenburg,  Christian  Frederick,  d.  1806,  o;  (7)  Brunswick,  Ferdi- 
nand, 1721-92  (General),  o;  (8)  William  Adolphus,  1745-70,  o; 

(8)  Conty,  Francis,  b.  1664  (elected  King  of  Poland),  3;  (4)  Han- 

over, Adolphus,  s.  of  George  III,  3;  (7)  Lorraine,  Leopold,  father 
of  Francis  I,  of  Austria,  5;  (6)  Mecklenburg,  Adolphus  Frederick  I, 
12;  (7)  Montmorency,  Henry  II,  o;  (8)  Nassau,  Frederick,  b.  1774, 
o;  (6)  Orange,  John,  brother  of  William  the  Silent,  16;  (5)  Portugal, 
Don  Fernando,  s.  John  I,  o;  (p)  Henry  the  Navigator,  o;  (5)  Prus- 
sia, Frederick  William  (late  Emperor),  7;  (p)  Henry,  brother  of 
Frederick  the  Great,  o;  (7)  Russia,  Alexis,  father  of  Peter  the  Great, 
6;  (6)  Russia,  Michael  Feodorvitch,  1596-1645,  3;  (4)  Saxe-Coburg, 
Francis  F.  Anthony,  7;  (5)  Saxe-Gotha,  Augustus,  s.  of  Frederick 
III,  o;  (6)  Ernest  II,  b.  1818,  o;  ( 10 ) Sweden,  Gustavus  Vasa,  d. 
1559.  6; (6.54)  Average,  4.48. 


Classification  in  Grades 


4i 


Grade  (10).  (Virtues) 

(7)  Coligny,  Odet,  1 51 5-1 5 71,  o;  (10)  Orange , William  the 
Silent,  13 ; ( 6 ) Portugal,  Pedro  II,  of  Brazil,  2 ; (7)  Pedro  V,  King, 
born  Saxe-Gotha,  6;  {8)  Russia,  Feodor,  the  first  Romanoff,  1550- 
1633,  1;  (7)  Saxe-Coburg,  Albert  (consort  of  Victoria),  8;  (6)  Saxe- 
Gotha,  Augustus,  b.  1772,  9;  (7)  Ernest  the  Pious,  9;  ( 8 ) Ernest  II 
(the  astronomer),  2;  (5)  Frederick  III,  d.  1772,  4;  (7)  Leopold  I; 

of  Belgium,  3;  ( 10 ) Sweden,  Gustavus  Adolphus,  2; (7 .33) 

Average,  4.09. 


Grade  { 1 ).  {Virtues.) 

{10)  Anhalt,  Catherine  II,  Empress  of  Russia,  1;  (8)  Orleans, 
Elizabeth,  d.  of  Philip  (Regent),  o;  (5)  Marie,  d.  of  Philip  (Regent), 
o;  (3)  Russia,  Elizabeth,  d.  of  Peter  the  Great,  o;  (z)  Saxony,  Anne, 
second  wife  of  William  the  Silent,  2;  ( 6 ) Spain,  Marie  Louisa, 

wife  of  Charles  IV,  6 ; (4)  Queen  Urraca,  1 ; (5.28)  Average, 

M3- 

Grade  {2).  {Virtues.) 

(5)  Brunswick,  Caroline,  wife  of  George  IV,  of  England,  o;  (5) 
Portugal,  Isabella,  d.  of  Don  John,  married  John  II,  Castile,  1;  (5) 
Mary,  d.  of  Alfonso  IV,  1;  (3)  Russia,  Annet758J  1694-1740,  o; 
(5)  Savoy,  Joanna,  d.  of  Charles  Amadeus,  1;  {6)  Spain,  Carlotta, 
d.  1830,  d.  of  Charles  IV,  6;  (5)  Isabella  II,  b.  1830,  6;  {6)  Maria 
Christina,  married  Ferdinand  VII,  2; (5.00)  Average,  2.13. 

Grade  (3).  {Virtues.) 

(7)  Austria,  Caroline,  Queen  of  Naples,  d.  1814,  7;  (5)  Maria 
Louisa,  married  Napoleon;  (5)  Bourbon,  Elizabeth,  d.  of  Louis  XV, 
3;  {6)  Brunswick,  Augusta,  1764-1788,  3;  (7)  Elizabeth  Christine, 
married  Frederick  William  II,  of  Prussia,  I;  {8)  Juliana,  Queen  of 
Denmark,  1;  {4)  Condi,  Henrietta,  d.  of  Louis  III,  o;  (5)  Louise, 
d.  of  Louis  III,  2;  {4)  Marie,  d.  of  Louis  III,  o;  (5)  Conty,  Louise, 
d.  of  Amand  II,  2;  (5)  Medici,  Marie,  wife  of  Henry  IV,  of  France, 
2;  (5)  Orleans,  Charlotte,  d.  of  Philip  (Regent),  5;  (5)  Portugal, 
Anne,  d.  of  John  VI;  (3)  Russia,  Catherine,  wife  of  Peter  the  Great, 
2;  {8)  Spain,  Joanna  Henriquez,  wdfe  of  John  II,  of  Aragon,  1;  (6) 


42 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Louise  Carlotta,  b.  1804,  d.  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  7;  ( 8 ) Theresa,  d. 
of  Alfonso  I,  Castile,  3;  (5)  Sweden,  Cecilia,  d.  of  Gustavus  Vasa, 
3; (5-66)  Average,  2.50. 

Grade  (4).  (Virtues.) 

(4)  Austria,  Leopoldine!853!,  married  Peter  of  Brazil,  4;  (5)  Maria 
Amelia!633!,  1746-1804,  4;  (7)  Margaret  of  Parma,  d.  of  Charles  V, 
1;  ( 6 ) Sophia  Dorothea,  married  George  III,  of  England,  2;  (7) 
Brandenburg,  Sophia  Magdalene,  married  Christian  VI,  of  Den- 
mark, 2;  (5)  Christine!374!,  d.  of  Henry  IV,  of  France,  4;  (6)  Monte- 
span,  mistress  of  Louis  XIV,  4;  ( 10 ) Conde,  Anne,  Duchess  of 
Longueville,  3;  (3)  Denmark,  Louise  Augusta,  d.  of  Christian  VII,  3; 
(7)  Farnese,  Elizabeth,  married  Philip  V,  of  Spain,  6;  ( 4 ) Hanover, 
Anne,  d.  of  George  II,  2;  (6)  Maille  de  Breze,  Clemence,  wife  of 
the  great  Conde,  1;  (4)  Mecklenburg,  Charlotte  Fredericka!145!, 
Queen  of  Denmark,  1;  (5)  Palatine,  Dorothea  Sophia,  mother  of 
Elizabeth  Farnese,  1;  (5)  Poland,  Catherine,  married  John  III,  of 
Sweden,  2;  (7)  Prussia,  Fredericka  Sophia,  Baireuth!228!,  1;  (5) 
Louisa!230!,  d.  of  Frederick  William  I,  1;  (g)  Russia,  Sophia!748!, 
half-sister  of  Peter  the  Great,  o;  (6)  Saxe-Gotha,  Augusta,  1719- 
1772  t78!,  6;  (4)  Saxony,  Maria  Amelia,  wife  of  Charles  III,  of  Spain, 
7;  ( 4 ) Spain,  Anne  of  Austria  = Louis  XIII,  of  France,  2;  (5) 
Maria  Isabella!506!,  married  Emanuel  of  Portugal,  o;  (4)  Mary  of 
Aragon!497!,  married  John  II,  of  Castile,  1;  (7)  Mary,  Queen  of 
Hungary,  d.  of  Philip  the  Handsome,  o;  (9)  Sweden,  Christina,  o; 
(5-76)  Average,  2.32. 

Grade  (5).  (Virtues.) 

(4)  Austria,  Anne,  d.  of  Maximilian  II,  1;  (3)  Maria  Anne,  d.  of 
Ferdinand  III,  2;  (7)  Mary  Elizabeth,  d.  of  Leopold  I,  o;  (4)  Maria 
Josepha,  d.  of  Joseph  I,  11;  (4)  Theresa,  d.  of  Ferdinand  III,  of 
Tuscany,  b.  1801,  d.  1855,  2;  (4)  Bourbon,  Adelaide!391!,  d.  of  Louis 
XV,  o;  (10)  Anne  Marie,  Mademoiselle,  d.  of  Gaston  of  Orleans,  o; 
(6)  Henrietta,  d.  of  Henry  IV,  of  France,  7;  (5)  Louise  Marie, 
Duchess  of  Parma,  d.  of  the  Duke  of  Berry,  3 ; (5)  Marie  Theresa, 
d.  of  Louis  XVI,  o;  (5)  Brandenburg,  Anne,  wife  of  Christian  IV, 


Classification  in  Grades 


43 


of  Denmark,  3;  (5)  Louise,  wife  of  Ferdinand,  brother  of  Frederick 
the  Great,  3;  (5)  Brunswick,  Anne  Amelia!188!,  wife  of  Ferdinand 
Albert  I,  n;  ( 4 ) Louise  Amelia!197!,  2;  (7)  Sybillat175!,  o;  (5)  Buren, 
Anne  of  Egmont,  married  William  the  Silent,  2;  (6)  Denmark, 
Sophia  Magdalene,  d.  of  Frederick  V,  1;  (6)  Hanover,  Amelia 
Sophia,  d.  of  George  II,  o;  (5)  Augusta,  sister  of  George  III,  6; 

(6)  Caroline  Matilda,  sister  of  George  III,  2;  (7)  Charlotte,  d.  of 
George  III,  6;  (4)  Hesse,  Fredericka  Louisa,  wife  of  Frederick 
William  II,  of  Prussia,  6;  (5)  Holstein,  Elizabeth  Juliana,  wife  of 
Anthony  Ulric  of  Brunswick,  6;  (7)  Juliana  Elizabeth,  mother  of 
Catherine  II,  of  Russia,  2;  (3)  Mecklenburg,  Louisa,  queen  of  Fred- 
erick II,  of  Denmark,  1;  (6)  Orange,  Emily!270!,  7;  (4)  Orleans, 
Anne!402!,  d.  of  Philip  of  Orleans,  4;  (7)  Louise  Adelaide,  1698- 
x 743c406!,  o;  (5)  Palatine,  Maria  Sophia,  married  Peter  II,  of  Portu- 
gal, 5 ; (4)  Plantagenet,  Catherine,  wife  of  Henry  IV,  of  Castile,  3 ; 
(5)  du  Plessis,  Nicole,  wife  of  Urbain  de  Maille  de  Breze;  (2)  Por- 
tugal, Barbara,  d.  of  John  V,  o;  (6)  Beatrix,  d.  of  Emanuel,  1;  (6) 
Catherine,  queen  of  Charles  II,  of  England,  o;  (4)  Constantina,  d. 
of  Emanuel,  I;  (7)  Marie  Benedicta,  d.  of  Joseph  I,  o;  (5)  Maria 
da  Gloria,  4;  (6)  Maria  Francesca,  d.  of  John  VI,  3;  (<§)  Theresa 
Matilda,  d.  of  Alfonso  I;  ( 4 ) Russia,  Lapukhin,  first  wife  of  Peter 
the  Great,  1;  ( 4 ) Miloslavski,  Marie,  first  wife  of  Alexis!745!,  7; 
(5)  Nariskin,  Natalia,  second  wife  of  Alexis!745!,  2;  (5)  Saxe-Hil- 
burghausen,  Albertina  Elizabeth!95!,  grandmother  of  George  IV,  9; 

(7)  Saxony,  Marie  Antoinette,  d.  of  Charles  VII,  4;  (7)  Solms, 

Amelia,  wife  of  Frederick  Henry  of  Orange,  5;  (7)  Spain,  Beatrix, 
d.  of  Alfonso  X,  8;  (6)  Caroline!508!,  d.  of  Francis  I,  of  the  Two 
Sicilies,  2;  (7)  Catherine,  d.  of  Philip  the  Handsome,  2;  (5)  Dulcia, 
queen  of  Sancho  I,  of  Portugal,  8;  (5)  Eleanor!513!,  queen  of  Eman- 
uel of  Portugal,  1;  (5)  Elizabeth,  queen  of  Joseph  II,  of  Austria,  o; 
(2)  Joanna  the  Mad,  6;  (5)  Leonora,  married  Ferdinand  I,  of 
Aragon,  7;  (2)  Maria  Theresa!553!,  queen  of  Louis  XIV,  1;  (5) 
Maria  Theresa!560!,  d.  of  Ferdinand  I,  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  6;  (5) 
Maria  Padilla,  mistress  of  Peter  I,  2;  (4)  Sweden,  Margaret,  wife 
of  Gustavus  Vasa,  8;  (3)  Ulrica  Eleanor,  d.  of  Charles  XI,  o;  (5) 
Tour  et  Taxis,  Marie  Augusta,  wife  of  Charles  Alexander  of  Wiir- 
temburg,  4; (5.19)  Average,  3.24. 


44 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Grade  (6).  (Virtues.) 

(5)  Austria,  Adelaide,  d.  oft648!,  queen  of  Victor  Emanuel  II,  of 
Italia,  4;  (4)  Clementina!845],  1;  (6)  Elizabeth,  d.  oft644!,  4;  (p)  Mar- 
garet, d.  of  Maximilian  I,  o;  (4)  Maria  Anna,  d.  of  Leopold  I,  3; 
(8)  Maria  Christina!630],  o;  (4)  Maria  Josepha!624],  d.  of  Joseph  I, 
11 ; (5)  Bavaria,  Maria  Anne,  1660-1690,  wife  of!3S1],  3;  (5)  Bour- 
bon, Victoria!392],  d.  of  Louis  XV,  o;  (5)  Brunswick,  Elizabeth!180], 
d.  of  Anthony  Ulric,  4;  (8)  Conde,  Louise,  Duchess  of  Maine!348],  3; 
(5)  Hanover,  Augusta  Sophia,  d.  of  George  III,  o;  (4)  Louisa,  d. 
of  George  II,  4;  (4)  Mary,  d.  of  George  II,  o;  (5)  Mary,  d.  of  George 
III,  o;  (6)  Wilhelmina,  married  Joseph  I,  of  Austria,  2;  (5)  Hesse, 
Fredericka,  mother  of  Louise,  Queen  of  Prussia,  5;  (5)  Louise,  b. 
1789,  d.  1867,  d.  of  Charles;  (7)  Masovia,  Cymburga,  mother  of 
Frederick  III,  of  Austria,  4;  (7)  Mecklenburg,  Sophia,  wife  of  Fred- 
erick II,  of  Denmark,  6;  (7)  Sophia  Elizabeth!162],  2;  (5)  Palatine, 
Elizabeth  Charlotte,  d.  of  Frederick  IV,  3;  (j)  Maria,  wife  of  Fred- 
erick Augustus  III,  of  Saxony,  1 ; (4)  Poland,  Marie  Leczinski, 
queen  of  Louis  XV,  of  France,  7;  (7)  Portugal,  Eleanor!697!,  wife  of 
Frederick  III,  of  Austria,  2;  (4)  Maria  I!723],  3;  (7)  Theresa!728!,  o; 
(5)  Prussia,  Charlotte!251!,  Empress  of  Russia,  7;  (7)  Reuss,  Augusta, 
grandmother  of  Queen  Victoria,  7;  (4)  Russia,  Catherine!755!,  d.  of 
Ivan,  1;  (6)  Saxe-Coburg,  Victoria  Marie,  mother  of  Queen  Vic- 
toria, 1;  (5)  Saxony,  Josepha,  mother  of  Louis  XVI,  5;  (7)  Spain, 
Berengaria  of  Barcelona,  wife  of  Alfonso  VII,  of  Castile,  4;  (7) 
Catherine,  sister  of  Charles  V,  Emperor;  (4)  Joanna,  married  Henry 
II  (Transtamara),  2;  (4)  Leonora,  queen  of  John  I,  of  Castile,  2; 
(7)  Leonora  de  Guzman,  queen  of  Alfonso  XI,  of  Castile,  6;  (2) 
Maria  Louisa!543!,  d.  of  Charles  III,  13 ; (6)  Mary,  queen  of  Pedro  II, 
of  Aragon,  1;  (6)  Mary,  d.  of  Charles  V,  Emperor,  8;  (p)  Medina- 
Sidonia,  Louise,  queen  of  John  IV,  of  Portugal,  3;  (5)  Violanta, 
queen  of  Alfonso  X,  of  Castile,  6 ; (7)  Violanta,  queen  of  James  I, 
of  Aragon,  7;  (7)  Catherine,  d.  of  Charles  IX,  5;  (8)  Sweden,  Sophia 
Albertina,  sister  of  Gustavus  III,  o;  (5)  Wiirtemburg,  Sophia,  Em- 
press of  Paul  of  Russia,  9; (5-69)  Average,  3.7 3. 

Grade  (7).  (Virtues.) 

(7)  Burgundy,  Mary,  d.  of  Charles  the  Bold,  2 ; (7)  Denmark , 
Ulrica  Eleanora,  d.  of  Frederick  III,  3;  (8)  d'Ernier,  Eleanor,  mar- 


Classification  in  Grades 


45 


ried  George  William  of  Brunswick,  i;  (5)  Hanover,  Charlotte,  d. 
of  George  IV,  o;  (4)  Elizabeth,  d.  of  George  III,  o;  (5)  Sophia 
Dorothea,  d.  of  George  I,  10;  ( 6 ) Orange,  Albertina,  d.  of  Fred- 
erick Henry,  2;  ( 6 ) Louisa!279!,  2;  (7)  Louisa  Juliana,  d.  of  William 
the  Silent,  5;  (5)  Orleans,  Mercedes,  d.  of  Anthony!423!,  0;  (5)  Philip- 
pina  Elizabeth!410!,  Q;  (9)  Palatine,  Elizabeth,  d.  of  Frederick  V,  o; 
(10)  Sophia,  d.  of  Frederick  V,  6;  (5)  Poland,  Anne,  wife  of  Ferdi- 
nand I,  Emperor,  13;  (1 5 ) Portugal,  Isabella!705!,  married  Emperor 
Charles  V,  3;  (7)  Mary,  b.  1538,  d.  1577,  wife  of  Alexander  Far- 
nese,  ?;  (6)  Saxe-Gotha,  Dorothea  Louise! 841,  d.  of  August,  2;  (2) 
Saxony,  Maria  Josepha,  d.  Emperor  Charles  VII,  married  Joseph 

II,  of  Austria,  o;  (5)  Spain,  Elizabeth  (Beatrix),  married  Ferdinand 

III,  of  Castile,  9;  (8)  Elvira,  wife  of  Bermudo  II,  2;  (5)  Joanna,  d. 

of  Charles  V,  1;  ( 4 ) Leonora!498!,  married  Edward  of  Portugal,  4; 
(5)  Mary!529!,  d.  of  Philip  III,  6;  (7)  Maria  Antonia,  married  Ferdi- 
nand VII,  of  Spain!564!,  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  o;  (4)  Maria  Louise!558!, 
d.  of  Ferdinand  VII,  5;  (5)  Urraca,  d.  of  Alfonso  VIII,  married 
Alfonso  II,  of  Portugal,  4; (5-89)  Average,  3.20. 

Grade  ( 8 ).  (Virtues.) 

(5)  Bourbon,  Louise  de  Blois,  d.  of  Louis  XIV,  7;  (5)  Louise,  d. 
of  the  Duke  of  Penthievre,  4;  (10)  Margaret  of  Navarre,  grand- 
mother of  Henry  IV,  of  France,  1;  (5)  Brandenburg,  Anne,  Queen  of 
Denmark,  2 ; (9)  Brunswick,  Anne,  Duchess  of  Saxe-Weimar  (patron 
of  Goethe,  etc.),  2 ; (6)  Elizabeth  married  Charles  VI,  of  Austria,  2; 
(7)  Coligny,  Louise,  wife  of  William  the  Silent,  1 ; (7)  Conde,  Louise 
Adelaide,  Duchess  of  Maine,  o;  (4)  Denmark,  Caroline,  d.  of  Fred- 
erick VI;  (4)  Hanover,  Caroline  Elizabeth,  d.  of  George  II,  o;  (5) 
Mecklenburg,  Louise!158!,  7;  (6)  Montmorency,  Charlotte,  married 
Conde,  3;  (5)  Plantagenet,  Philippa,  Queen  of  Portugal,  6;  (5) 
Portugal,  Eleanor,  queen  of  John  II,  1;  (4)  Marie  Isabelle,  d.  of 
John  VI,  o;  (6)  Matilda,  d.  of  Sancho  I,  o;  (9)  Prussia,  Amelia, 
sister  of  Frederick  the  Great,  o;  (7)  Russia,  Anne,  d.  of  Peter  the 
Great,  o;  (6)  Savoy,  Maria,  queen  of  Philip  V,  of  Spain,  2;  (8) 
Saxe-Meiningen,  Louise  Dorothea,  “the  German  Minerva,”  3;  (8) 
Spain,  Isabella,  d.  of  Philip  II,  o ; (8)  Marie,  wife  of  Sancho  IV,  6 ; 
(5)  Marie  Amelia,  wife  of  Louis  Philippe,  King  of  France,  8;  (7) 
Sancha,  queen  of  Ferdinand  I,  5; (6.29)  Average,  2.61. 


46 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Grade  (p).  (Virtues.) 

(5)  Austria , Elizabeth,  d.  of  Maximilian  II,  o;  (5)  Margaret,  d. 
of  Maximilian  II,  o;  (9)  Maria  Theresa  (the  great  queen),  10;  (5) 
Bourbon,  Adelaide!398!,  o;  (7)  Elizabeth^3"!,  o;  (p)  Jeanne  d’Albret, 
d.  of  Henry  of  Navarre,  2;  (8)  Brandenburg,  Caroline,  queen  of 
George  II,  of  England,  7;  (6)  Brunswick,  Charlotte,  Czarina  of 
Russia,  2;  (4)  Elizabeth,  wife  of  Frederick  the  Great,  o;  (6)  Den- 
mark, Charlotte  Amelia,  d.  of  Frederick  IV,  o;  (p)  Hanau,  Amalie, 
Landgrafin  von  Hessen,  4;  (8)  Hanover,  Sophia  Charlotte,  Queen 
of  Frederick  I,  of  Prussia,  1 ; (5)  Hesse,  Charlotte  Amelia,  queen  of 
Christian  V,  of  Denmark,  3;  (5)  Mecklenburg,  Charlotte,  queen  of 
George  III,  of  England,  13;  (8)  Prussia,  Charlotte,  sister  of  Fred- 
erick the  Great,  and  Duchess  of  Brunswick,  8;  (8)  Russia,  Natalia, 
d.  of  Alexis,  o;  ( 8 ) Spain,  Berengaria  (famous  queen),  5;  (7)  Stol- 

berg,  Juliana,  mother  of  William  the  Silent,  12; (6-78) 

Average,  3.73. 

Grade  ( 10 ).  (Virtues) 

(6)  Hanover,  Queen  Victoria,  8;  (5)  Mancini,  Anne,  wife  of 
Amand,  Prince  of  Conty,  2;  (10)  Prussia,  Louisa  Ulrica,  Queen  of 
Sweden,  and  sister  of  Frederick  the  Great,  4;  (5)  Savoy,  Christine, 
d.  of  Victor  Emanuel  I,  1;  (10)  Spain,  Isabella  of  Castile,  4;  (8) 

Saint  Elizabeth,  queen  of  Dennis  I,  of  Portugal,  2; (7 .33) 

Average,  3.50. 


CHAPTER  II 


House  oe  Hanover  in  England 

[1]  — [37] 

The  group  first  considered  will  be  the  royal  house  of 
Hanover,  from  its  first  appearance  in  England  to  the 
present  time.  The  blood  introduced  into  this  family 
from  George  I on,  has  been  mostly  Saxe-Coburg  (both 
branches,  the  Saalfeld  and  Gotha),  Mecklenburg-Stre- 
litz,  and  a little  of  an  obscure  branch  of  the  Branden- 
burgs, by  the  marriage  of  George  II  with  the  famous 
Queen  Caroline. 

The  extinction  of  the  house  of  Orange  and  the  death 
of  Queen  Anne  brought  the  Crown  of  England  by  round- 
about succession  through  a Palatine  descendant  of  James 
the  First,  to  George  of  Hanover,  an  unwilling  accepter  of 
the  uneasy  task  of  royalty.  George  I was  a rather  weak, 
dull,  and  indifferent  scion  of  a gifted  stock.  He  was  de- 
scended from  the  brilliant  house  of  Orange,  which  we 
shall  afterwards  see  was  able  to  form  the  greatness  of  the 
Hohenzollems  in  Prussia,  but  he  himself  was  nothing. 
George  I’s  character  was  not  remarkable,  but  if  he  is  to 
be  described  in  any  one  word,  it  ought  to  be  as  one  always 
thinks  of  the  Georges  as  a whole.  He  was  rather  dull. 
His  tastes  were  coarse,  and  his  private  life  far  from  ex- 
emplary; nor  can  the  reproach  of  brutality  be  forgotten 
as  long  as  memory  can  be  awaked,  or  sympathy  aroused 
for  his  young  bride  Sophia  Dorothea,  whom  he  so  cruelly 

47 


48 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


imprisoned  in  the  Castle  of  Ahlden.  The  story  of  this 
romantic  and  unfortunate  affair  has  been  told  in  many 
memoirs,  the  latest  of  which,  Wilkins’  “Love  of  an  Un- 
crowned Queen,”  gives  an  interesting  picture  of  the 
court  life  at  Brunswick,  the  home  of  George  before  his 
advent  to  the  English  throne. 

Sophia  Dorothea,  his  consort,  young,  beautiful,  viva- 
cious, and  headstrong,  neglected  by  her  husband,  formed 
an  attachment  with  Count  Konigsmark;  which  resulted 
in  the  murder  of  the  Count,  and  the  imprisonment  of 
Dorothea  during  the  remainder  of  her  life.  She  was  a 
first  cousin  of  George  I,  her  father,  Duke  of  Celle,  being 
a brother  of  Ernest  Augustus,  of  Hanover  — both  belong- 
ing to  a branch  of  the  house  of  Brunswick.  The  stock 
from  which  she  came  was  good,  though  devoid  of  genius, 
and  one  might  expect  much  from  some  of  the  descend- 
ants of  such  a union,  were  the  intellectual  strain  seen  in 
the  upper  left-hand  corner  of  the  chart  for  the  House  of 
Hanover  (p.  50),  not  lost,  as  will  now  be  explained. 

A glance  at  this  same  chart  shows  that  both  the  father 
and  mother  of  George  I were  endowed  with  superior 
minds;  and  Sophia,  the  mother,  was  the  intellectual 
Duchess  of  Brunswick,  intellect  (10),  a descendant  of  the 
illustrious  house  of  Orange  on  both  sides.  It  was  left 
for  the  sister  of  George,  Sophia  Charlotte[6],  the  “Philo- 
sophical Queen”  of  Frederick  I of  Prussia,  to  transmit 
the  genius  of  Orange  into  Prussia,  and  to  form  the  re- 
markable group  of  which  Frederick  the  Great  was  the 
most  famous. 

This  queen  may  be  seen  in  the  diagram  below  to  be 
the  only  child  to  inherit,  in  practically  full  force,  the 
mental  endowments  of  her  mother.  The  others,  ex- 


Hanover  in  England  49 

cepting  George  I,  died  young,  or,  if  they  lived,  never 
amounted  to  much,  or  left  any  records  of  their  achieve- 
ments. 

(7)  (3)  Ernest  Augustus  of  Hanover  [*]  I =:  (10)  (8)  Sophia  of  Palatine. 


(4)  (6)  George  I [2]  Frederick  [3]  Max  [4]  (8)  (9)  Sophia  [5]  Christian  [6]  Ernest 

Dull,  1661-1691.  Wm.  Charlotte,  1671-  Augustus  t7] 

mediocre.  1666-  Queen  of  i7°3*  1674- 

1726.  Prussia.  1728. 

Called  “ the 
Philosophi- 
cal Queen.” 

George  I,  from  whom  the  subsequent  members  of  the 
house  of  Hanover,  in  England,  are  descended,  did  not 
in  the  least  inherit  the  intellectual  qualities  of  his  mother, 
Sophia,  of  Palatine,  so  here  occurred  a selection  of  the 
genius,  to  go  to  Prussia,  while  the  dullness  was  trans- 
ferred, in  the  person  of  George,  to  the  English  house, 
where,  we  shall  see,  subsequent  unions  might  be  expected 
to  do  little  more  than  maintain  his  type. 

George  II[8],  the  next  king  of  the  house  of  Hanover, 
resembled  his  father  in  many  respects.  He  is  summa- 
rized on  the  chart  as  dull,  coarse,  and  obstinate.  The 
following  contemporary  rhyme  throws  a very  just  light 
on  his  character: 


You  may  strut,  dapper  George,  but  it  will  all  be  in  vain: 

You  govern  no  more  than  Don  Philip  of  Spain. 

Then  if  you  would  have  us  fall  down  to  adore  you, 

Lock  up  your  fat  wife  as  your  dad  did  before  you. 

This  “fat  wife,”  Caroline  of  Brandenburg,  was  in  reality 
the  flower  of  them  all,  as  far  as  those  of  the  chart  of 
Hanover  are  concerned ; and  aside  from  Sophia,  of  Pala- 
tine, was  the  only  really  vigorous  character  included 
among  the  Hanover  members.  The  chart  shows  the 


5° 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


stock  from  which  Caroline  came  to  have  been  “obscure,” 
so  that  an  appearance  of  very  exceptional  mental  gifts 
might  not  be  expected  among  the  children  of  George  II, 
and,  as  a matter  of  fact,  none  even  equaled  their  mother, 
Caroline.  William,  Duke  of  Cumberland[u],  commander 
at  Fontenoy  and  Culloden,  was,  however,  a man  above 
the  average  in  mental  endowments. 

The  eldest  son,  Frederick,  Prince  of  Wales,  may  be  seen, 
on  the  same  chart,  to  have  been  the  least  gifted  of  all 
the  children;  and  since  he  was  the  progenitor  for  the  re- 
maining members  of  the  house,  there  is  little  wonder  that  the 
intellectual  strain  which  we  saw  in  the  beginning  (upper 
left  corner  of  the  Hanover  chart)  disappeared  entirely 
from  then  onward  through  the  remaining  generations. 

His  consort,  Augusta[78],  was  a daughter  of  Frederick 
II,  of  Saxe-Gotha.  The  chart  shows  this  stock  to  be 
excellent  in  moral  qualities,  but  devoid  of  any  excep- 
tional ability. 

The  next  generation  (George  III,  and  others)  could 
not  be  expected  to  show  ability,  and  did  not.  Frederick 
Henry[21]  and  Edward  of  York[19]  maintained  their  father’s 
reputation  for  dissipation,  while  the  others,  brought  up  in 
the  same  surroundings,  were  sufficiently  virtuous  to  keep 
up  the  good  name  of  their  mother’s  family,  which  was 
then,  and,  in  fact,  still  is,  the  best  in  all  royalty. 

This  strong  contrast  between  the  children  is  very  im- 
portant to  notice,  and  can  hardly  be  explained  on  any 
grounds  but  heredity.  It  would  seem  that  when  two 
different  types  are  united  or  crossed,  some  of  the  offspring 
show  the  characteristics  of  one  of  these  variations,  some 
of  the  other.  This  instance  here,  may  be  compared  with 
many  evidences  of  the  same  phenomenon  among  the 


Pedigree 


fl  I 


! | i 

i |i* 

if!  til 
ill  S?| 

3 6 

3 s 

1 — l — 1 

I^^w“*i2?uial!t!«e. 
toiyo^itjciyi  e«c  n 


3|  > 

J 

J|  13 

Hi  S 

fii  !1 

«o? 

Li 


(M  («>  Segttk  D 


• San 

Called  "The 
hb  Subject*. " 


IS  k 

u il 
1 h 


9>  Caroline  ol  llraodnibuc*. 


.-Am,  UUnpMlaem. 

K°r*t  I umwicmi  Gentle  and 

Arrogant.  end  food- 


'■ri 


WliBaen  Frederick. 


<S>(V)  George  1 1 1 .King 


I 

>«*?»”*  Fag 


of  the  English  Kings  of  the  House  of  Hanover. 


Of  the  figures  In  pare nt he* 


S! 


<J>0)  Frederick  I. 

al  Nau-Golha , .. 
Capable.  ploui.  nnu 
A |uu  and  beneficent 


O- 


■l  Si 

!?  * 


o the  left  of  the  name*,  the  first  refer*  to  the  grade  for  intellect,  the  second  to  the  grade  for  virtues. 
X signifies  a grade  below  (4)  for  virtues. 


£ 

I 

h 

I! 

II 


Sophia  ol  Saee-Halle. 

"Ohecur,." 


dwick  II  SfciodMlal*). 
STJCKM  •tlleieaolog 


m ol  Naic-Goth* 


<j)(»)  Wiliam  Henry.  Gloucester)” 
Good-neiund  nod  amiable. 


>)  Frederick  Henry.  Cumberland  I”) 


b)  a)  Caroline  Matilda  ("|. 


iVrederlck  II 1“ 


ol  Mceklenburr.  Honor, 
able.  H»  I.  mil,  a ala, pie. 


(6)  (y)  Adolphua  Frederick  III  P*’| 


M U 


"■sats 


L 


(M(S  Melykao  rrnbrvk  It  (*|. 


Il 

L- 

neet  ol  Sard 


j 


I 


l l 

?f  sl 


ss-L~-o 


"x'rSE'&SSI 


(j)  <t>  Frederick.  York  ("I. 
X U jht. heeded,  good- 
Ifottpated. 


'.LoioIK 


t>  Charlotte  f" 


<)>(«  Augueu  Sophia  (**I 


I la  tplta  .nil  . 


ssr-irsfea. 


'■SS5- 


-*sa& 


Hanover  in  England  51 

Romanoffs,  Bourbons,  and  other  families.  In  other 
words,  we  have  what  is  called  alternative  inheritance,  a 
condition  very  common  in  hybrid  crossings  among  many 
forms  of  animals  and  plants. 

George,  the  eldest  son  of  Frederick,  Prince  of  Wales, 
who  became  the  famous  George  III,  of  England,  was  a 
dull,  stubborn  prig,  as  unlike  his  father  as  a son  could 
well  be.  The  characteristics  of  Queen  Charlotte[154i,  his 
wife,  may  be  seen  on  the  Hanover  chart,  and  after  scan- 
ning the  description  of  her  tastes  and  the  general  tone  of 
the  ancestry,  one  might  predict  among  twelve  children, 
about  the  outcome  that  is  to  be  observed.  George  IV  2% 
and  Frederick,  Duke  of  York[2%  are  the  only  black  sheep; 
representing  their  uncle,  Frederick  Henry[21],  and  grand- 
father, Frederick,  Prince  of  Wales[10].  The  remaining 
children  turned  out  mediocre  and  correspond  with  the 
residue  of  the  pedigree. 

William  IV[25]  was  eccentric,  and  the  only  child  to 
show  the  slight  family  psycho-neurosis  of  which  George 
III  was  a distinct  example.  This  tendency  to  mental 
unbalance,  which  in  George  took  the  form  of  insanity 
during  his  later  life,  is  discussed  in  the  chapter  on  Den- 
mark (p.  228).  Here  in  the  house  of  Hanover  where  it 
showed  itself  in  only  a few  examples,  it  may  be  consid- 
ered to  be  probably  a reversion  to  the  old  Palatine  in- 
sanity at  the  time  of  the  Stuarts. 

Edward,  Duke  of  Kent[27],  who,  as  the  father  of  Vic- 
toria, became  the  ancestor  of  the  present  royal  family  in 
England,  was  one  of  the  better  and  more  normal  among 
the  children  of  George  III.  Since  he  married  Victoria 
Marie  Louise[56],  of  Saxe-Coburg,*  the  forecast  for  the 

* See  following  chapter. 


52  Heredity  in  Royalty 

future  was  then  very  good,  from  the  moral  standpoint; 
while  from  the  intellectual,  nothing  more  than  average 
was  to  be  expected.  It  is  too  soon  to  estimate  satisfac- 
torily the  intellectual  standing  of  Queen  Victoria,  but,  as 
regards  the  other  portion  of  personal  make-up  under  dis- 
cussion in  these  pages,  there  can  be  no  question  but  that 
the  justly  lamented  queen  was  a worthy  representative  of 
that  remarkable  relationship  of  noble  characters  to  which 
her  husband,  as  well  as  her  mother,  belonged.  (See 
under  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.) 

If  many  children  had  been  born  to  Edward,  Duke  of 
Kent,  it  might  be  expected  that  one  or  two  would  resemble 
George  IV  in  reverting  to  the  dissolute  type,  or  inherit 
the  insanity  of  George  III;  but  there  was  no  reason  why 
one  child  might  not  favor  the  better  members  of  the 
family.  It  is  a great  mistake  to  consider  that  Queen 
Victoria  had  a bad  ancestry,  as  considerably  over  three- 
quarters  of  the  inheritable  influence  was  of  the  best  type 
that  royalty  in  any  of  its  branches  can  offer.  An  edito- 
rial pubished  in  a Boston  paper  about  the  time  of  her 
death,  is  worth  quoting  as  showing  the  prevailing  incor- 
rect ideas  in  regard  to  heredity  in  general,  as  well  as 
concerning  this  particular  case. 

“ Uninjured  by  Heredity : Queen  Victoria  may  be 
regarded  as  a fortunate  example  that  heredity  is  not 
always  reliable  to  perpetuate  ancestral  traits.  It  did  not 
need  the  pungent  and  caustic  lectures  of  Thackeray  in 
this  country  to  inform  the  American  public  of  the  kind  of 
kings  from  whom  she  was  descended.  The  first  two 
Georges  can  hardly  be  considered  monarchs  of  fragrant 
memory,  and  her  grandfather  was  a man  who,  by  his 
pig-headed  course  towards  our  country  in  its  colonial 


GEORGE  l L2]. 


ANNE\P], 

Daughter  of  George  //  of  England.  Married 
William  IV  of  Nassau-Dietz. 


WILLIAM,  DUKE  OF  CUMBERLAND  [«], 
Son  of  George  II. 


EDWARD  DUKE  OF  YORK 
Brother  of  George  III. 


ERNEST  AUGUSTUS,  DUKE  OF  CUMBERLAND^], 
Son  of  George  III . 


WILLIAM  / If  p]. 


GEORGE  //[8J. 


FREDERICK,  DUKE  OF  YORK  [24], 
Son  of  George  III. 


Hanover  in  England 


53 


state,  brought  on  the  American  Revolution.  Her  uncle, 
George  IV,  was  an  embodiment  of  what  was  worst  in  his 
house.  Her  other  uncle,  William  IV,  who  intervened 
between  her  and  his  predecessor,  was  better  in  his  morals 
than  in  his  manners,  and  was  an  inoffensive  ruler,  rather 
than  one  to  win  more  important  distinction.  From  this 
unpromising  stem  comes  Victoria,  of  whose  father  the 
best  that  can  be  said  is  that  nothing  very  serious  to  his 
discredit  is  recorded.  Victoria  thus  blossomed  out  of 
an  unpromising  line  of  ancestors.” 

This  illustrates  very  well  the  common  mistakes,  made 
over  and  over  again,  regarding  human  heredity.  People 
neither  realize  the  paucity  of  influence  from  a few  remote 
ancestors  nor  the  need  of  considering  the  maternal  lines 
and  making  up  a complete  pedigree;  extend  though  it 
may,  only  approximately,  into  the  past. 

The  marriage  of  Queen  Victoria  with  Albert,  of  Saxe- 
Gotha,  may  be  considered,  in  regard  to  its  bearing  on  the 
future  welfare  of  the  royal  family  of  England,  as  one  of 
the  best  possible.  The  undesirable  types  of  folly  and  eccen- 
tricity are  pretty  well  eliminated,  and  a cultivated,  intelli- 
gent group  of  men  and  women  may  be  expected  to  occur. 

As  before  stated  in  the  introduction,  it  is  almost  im- 
possible to  find  a word  about  the  branch  of  Reuss-Ebers- 
dorf,  so  that  the  grandparent  of  Queen  Victoria,  Augusta 
Caroline,  together  with  the  ascending  generations,  has 
been  placed  with  the  others  only  after  much  searching  of 
records  (see  chart,  opp.  p.  60).  In  the  same  way  English 
historians  have  never  taken  the  least  interest  in  two  of  the 
grandparents  of  their  kings,  George  IV  and  William  IV. 

I refer  to  the  characteristics  of  Charles  Lewist149],  of 
Mecklenburg,  and  Albertina  Elizabeth,  of  Saxe-Hilburg- 


54 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


hausen,  names  doubtless  unknown  to  most  of  my  readers. 
This  branch,  important  to  English  history  of  a hundred 
years  ago,  has,  like  the  Reuss  record,  been  filled  in  on  the 
chart  (opp.  p.  50)  in  an  unsatisfactory  manner  only  after 
much  research ; and  all  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  George 
III  was  insane,  and  some  of  his  many  children  were  liable 
to  the  same  trouble,  and  all  the  more  so  if  this  maternal 
branch  was  not  in  sound  mental  health.  It  was  not  that 
writers  did  not  wish  to  give  causes  for  the  disgraceful 
actions  of  George  IV  and  his  brother  Frederick,  Duke 
of  York;  but  here,  as  elsewhere,  everything  was  ascribed 
to  “bringing  up,”  or  to  some  personal  responsibility  of 
the  individual,  which  gives  us  the  phrase  “own  fault,” 
which  may  be  useful  in  correcting  children,  but  is  hardly 
a scientific  way  of  explaining  causes;  at  least,  until  one 
has  taken  into  account  the  probability  from  inherited 
ancestral  or  other  material  influences. 

The  nine  children  of  Queen  Victoria  and  Albert  are 
not  placed  in  the  grades  here  employed,  because  it  has 
been  the  aim  of  the  writer  to  work  only  with  those  long 
enough  dead  to  have  reached  their  proper  level  in  the 
scale  of  the  world’s  estimates.  It  may,  however,  be  said 
that  the  lives  of  nearly  all  the  descendants  have  upheld 
the  high  standard  one  might  expect  from  the  ancestry  as 
here  analyzed.  The  early  life  of  the  present  king,  Ed- 
ward VII,  comes  out  in  contrast  with  the  others,  and  can 
more  readily  be  explained  by  heredity  than  by  any  other 
means.  With  the  death  of  Queen  Victoria,  the  house  of 
Hanover  came  to  an  end,  and  the  coronation  of  King 
Edward  VII  inaugurated  the  reign  of  the  house  of  Saxe- 
Coburg-Gotha. 


LOUISE  n 

Daughter  of  George  II,  Queen  of  Frederick  V of 
Denmark. 


FREDERICK,  PRINCE  OF  WALES  [10], 
Son  of  George  II. 


CAROLINE  MATILDA L22],  QUEEN  OF  CHRISTIAN 
VII  OF  DENMARK.  Sister  of  George  III. 


AUGUSTA  [17],  DUCHESS  OF  BRUNSWICK. 
Sister  of  George  III. 


WILLIAM  HENRY,  DUKE  OF  GLOUCESTER [M], 
Brother  of  George  III. 


GEORGE /// [1«J  AND  QUEEN  CHARLOTTE [>»]. 


EDWARD,  DUKE  OF  KENT[-~], 
Son  of  George  III . 


WILLIAM  p], 

Son  of  William,  Duke  of  Gloucester  [-0]. 


Hanover  in  England 


55 


SUMMARY  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  HANOVER 

Psychological  Aspects 

From  Ernest  Augustus  to  Queen  Victoria,  we  have 
thirty-seven  members  in  the  direct  line  who  have  fur- 
nished us  with  records  for  study.  To  this  thirty-seven 
we  may  add  such  ancestors  and  collaterals  as  the  various 
marriages  from  Ernest  Augustus’s  time  onward  have 
brought  into  the  family  connection.  These  form  the  en- 
tire group  of  persons  found  on  the  Hanover  chart.  There 
one  can  see  that  the  significant  fact,  to  be  drawn  from  a 
study  of  this  Hanoverian  branch,  is  that  among  this  large 
number  (89)  there  is  not  a single  person,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Sophia,  of  Palatine,  whom  one  would  think  of  call- 
ing a genius;  all  of  this  stamp  being  grouped  about  each 
other,  in  other  regions  of  a great  imaginary  chart,  made 
to  include  all  the  royalty  considered  in  the  book.  It  is 
also  significant  that  there  is  but  a slight  amount  of  in- 
sanity, George  III  being  the  only  one  actually  insane. 
Also  no  true  imbecility  can  be  found.  The  following  is 
a list  of  the  Hanover  marriages: 

George  I = Sophia  Dorothea,  of  Brunswick,  stock 
pretty  good,  no  genius.* 

George  II  = Caroline,  of  Brandenburg,  stock  good,  no 
genius. 

Frederick,  Prince  of  Wales  = Augusta,  of  Saxe-Coburg, 
stock  good,  no  genius. 

George  III  = Charlotte,  of  Mecklenburg,  stock  “ ob- 
scure,” good,  no  genius. 

* “No  genius”  means  that  no  individuals  worthy  of  grades  (9)  or  (10) 
for  intellect  are  to  be  found.  The  word  “ genius  ” is  used  in  this  sense 
throughout  this  book. 


56 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Edward,  Duke  of  Kent  = Victoria  Maria,  of  Saxe- 
Coburg,  stock  excellent,  no  genius,  strong  literary  bent. 

Queen  Victoria  = Albert,  of  Saxe-Coburg,  stock  excel- 
lent, no  genius,  strong  literary  bent. 

Thus,  from  George  the  First’s  time  on,  there  has  never 
been  any  genius  introduced  into  the  pedigree  of  the 
house  of  Hanover,  and,  as  we  all  know,  none  has  ap- 
peared in  any  of  the  descendants  bearing  the  name.  So 
as  regards  mental  attainments,  we  have,  what  we  might 
expect,  mediocrity  the  characteristic,  with  here  and  there 
minds  above  the  average.  There  is  certainly  nothing 
higher  than  grade  (8)  (Queen  Caroline,  consort  of 
George  II). 

It  is  also  to  be  noted  that  there  were  not  among  these 
thirty-seven  of  the  Hanover  house,  a single  man  or  woman 
of  literary  taste  and  ability  sufficient  to  have  been  known 
as  an  author.  Contrast  with  this  the  authorship  in  the 
house  of  Brunswick,  pp.  67,  68,  or  in  the  Saxe-Coburg 
family,  p.  59. 

We  can  easily  understand  from  the  standpoint  of  hered- 
ity, why  George  IV  was  such  a scapegoat,  and  why  his 
brother,  the  Duke  of  York,  was  not  much  better.  It 
was  simply  his  grandfather,  Frederick,  and  great-grand- 
father, George  II,  returning  in  him.  It  cannot  be  rightly 
affirmed  that  their  characters  were  due  to  the  conditions 
of  the  social  life  of  the  time,  or  to  the  too  rigid  bringing 
up  to  which  George  III  subjected  his  children.  All  the 
children  did  not  show  such  traits.  Most  of  them,  on  the 
contrary,  were  quiet  and  well-conducted  like  their  father 
and  their  mother  and  their  mother’s  family.  This  ratio 
is  about  what  we  should  expect. 

The  explanation  of  the  entire  group  is  almost  perfect 


CHARLOTTE  L26l, 
Daughter  of  George  III. 


AUGUSTA  [28]; 
Daughter  of  George  III. 


SOPHIA  L34], 
Daughter  of  George  III. 


ELIZABETH  [29], 
Daughter  of  George  III. 


FREDERICK  HENRY,  DUKE  OF  CUMBERLAND [»]. 
Brother  of  George  III. 


GEORGE  /1/p], 


ADOLPHUS,  DUKE  OF  CAMBRIDGE  [32J, 
Son  of  George  III. 


AUGUSTUS,  DUKE  OF  SUSSEX [31], 
Son  of  George  III. 


Hanover  in  England 


57 


from  the  standpoint  of  heredity,  and  is  much  better  than 
an  explanation  from  environment,  because  we  would  then 
fail  to  account  for  the  contrasts  among  the  children; 
which  contrasts  are  to  be  expected  from  the  effects  of 
alternative  inheritance. 

SUMMARY  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  HANOVER 

Facial  Aspects 

In  looking  over  the  portraits  of  this  family,  there  seem 
to  be  at  least  four  distinct  types  met  with. 

a.  Type  with  regular  features. 

b.  “Guelph,”  typified  in  George  III[183  and  Edward, 
Duke  of  Kent[27]. 

c.  Type  of  Frederick,  Prince  of  Wales[10]. 

d.  Type  of  George  II[8]. 

The  majority  belong  to  type  a,  or  the  regular,  and  is 
probably  due  to  the  fact  that  George  I and  his  parents, 
the  wife  of  George  I and  her  parents,  the  queen  of  George 
II,  and  the  wife  of  Frederick,  Prince  of  Wales[78],  were 
either  beautiful  or  had  faces  without  marked  peculiarities. 

The  type  which  I have  called  “Guelph”  may  be  de- 
scribed as  long,  sloping  forehead,  aquiline  nose,  chin 
rather  small  and  slightly  receding.  [u],  [18],  [20],  [24]  (all 
but  chin)  and  [27],  [35],  [37],  belong  in  this  group. 

The  type  of  Frederick,  Prince  of  Wales[10],  is  seen  in  [16] 
and  in  his  daughters  Augusta[17]  and  Caroline  Matilda[22], 
but  not  in  the  other  children. 

George  the  Second’s  face  is  reproduced  in  Frederick, 
Prince  of  Wales,  as  far  down  as  the  mouth,  the  heavy 
chin  being  replaced  by  a small  one.  This  large  jaw  of 
George  II  found  so  frequently  in  royalty,  especially  among 


5 8 Heredity  in  Royalty 

the  Hapsburgs  and  among  the  kings  of  Denmark,  was 
rare  in  the  house  of  Hanover;  Ernest  Augustus[30]  and 
Frederick[24]  being  the  only  descendants  of  George  II[8] 
to  show  it.  Ernest  Augustus1301  exhibits  complete  rever- 
sion to  his  great-grandfather  George  II. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  face  is  inherited  in 
much  the  same  way  as  the  character.  It  is  easy  to  divide 
the  members  into  groups,  some  of  which  show  the  pecul- 
iarity in  question,  while  others  do  not.  The  features 
usually  resemble  only  one  of  the  two  parents  when  the 
parents  are  dissimilar;  or  at  least  some  one  feature,  nose, 
chin,  or  eyes,  may  be  easily  referred  to  one  of  two  parents 
rather  than  to  a blending  of  each.  In  other  words,  we 
have  again  alternative  inheritance. 

The  grades  in  this  chapter  are  based  on  all  the  combined  and  averaged 
opinions  of  the  following:  Diet,  of  National  Biography;  Lippincott’s;  P.  Fitz- 
gerald, “ Geo.  Ill,”  “William  IV;”  Dr.  Doran,  “Queens  of  Hanover;” 
Holt,  “Geo.  Ill;”  Jesse,  “Geo.  Ill;”  Galt,  “Geo.  Ill;”  Walpole, 
“ Geo.  Ill;  ” Sir  N.  and  L.  Wraxall ; Von  Heinemann,  “ Gesch.  von 
Braunschweig;”  Vehse,  “ Court  of  Prussia.”  See  Appendix- 


CHAPTER  III 


Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,  the  Reigning  House  of 
England 

[38] -[84] 

As  I started  with  the  present  King  of  England,  and 
since  his  father  was  a prince  of  Saxe-Coburg,  I was  at 
once  led  into  that  family,  which  will  now  be  considered. 
Albert,  the  lamented  consort  of  Queen  Victoria,  was,  as 
every  one  knows,  a highly  cultivated,  earnest,  and  noble 
man,  a devoted  husband,  and  an  enthusiastic  reformer  in 
all  affairs  related  to  the  public  good.  Well  versed  in 
science  and  literature,  he  was  also  an  accomplished  musi- 
cian. Did  he  come  by  this  character  through  inherit- 
ance? It  will  be  seen  that  traits  like  Albert’s  are  written 
all  over  his  family  pedigree.  As  the  group  just  consid- 
ered, Hanover,  was  remarkable  for  its  dullness;  so  this 
group  is  remarkable  for  its  virtues  and  bent  towards  lit- 
erature, science,  and  art.  It  is  not  that  the  dukes  in  the 
male  line  have  shown  such  tendency  in  a marked  degree, 
but  it  is,  that  at  each  step  going  back,  the  pedigree 
gives  us  in  many  stems,  examples  of  idealists,  poets,  and 
dreamers.  The  main  tap-roots  of  this  stock  have  been 
from  Ernest  the  Pious,  Brunswick-Wolfenbiittel,  Saxe- 
Gotha,  Saxe-Saalfeld,  and  other  branches  of  the  Saxe 
houses.  Ernest  the  Pious[60],  himself,  who  appears  many 

59 


6 o 


Heredity  in  Royalty 

times  in  the  pedigree,  was  a man  of  wisdom,  virtue,  and 
marked  religious  bent;  the  Brunswick  family  was  noted 
for  its  strong  literary  taste,  as  will  be  shown  more  in  de- 
tail later;  and  all  marriages  with  the  Saxe  houses  can  be 
seen  to  have  kept  alive  those  same  qualities  as  the  salient 
characteristics  of  the  breed. 

We  see  that  after  two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  the  same 
traits  exist  because  there  has  never  been  a time  when 
blood  of  another  sort  was  introduced  to  contaminate  or 
dilute  it.  Everywhere  we  notice  that  love  of  ideas  and 
refinement  of  taste  have  been  the  objects  sought,  rather 
than  the  sway  of  power  or  the  obtainance  of  military 
fame.  There  has  not  been  one  soldier  of  sufficient 
renown  to  appear  in  any  of  the  smaller  biographical 
dictionaries  like  Lippincott’s  or  Rose’s.  One  only 
was  what  may  be  called  a successful  general,  but  his 
career  is  described  solely  in  the  larger  German  dic- 
tionaries. 

From  Ernest  the  Pious  (1601-1675)  to  Frederick  IV 
(1774-1825),  the  branch  of  Gotha  contains,  including 
ancestors,  64  names.  The  branch  of  Coburg  from  John 
Ernest  (sixteenth  century)  to  Albert,  consort  of  Queen 
Victoria  (1819-1861),  contains  118  names.  There  is 
considerable  intermarriage,  so  that  we  find  some  per- 
sons repeated  several  times.  Thus  the  actual  number  of 
individuals  is  less  than  this;  still,  the  value  scientifically  is 
64  + 1 18  or  182.  Although  in  the  furthest  degree  of 
remoteness  we  deal  with  sixty-four  different  tap-roots, 
owing  to  intermarriages  there  are  only  twenty-one  family 
names.  Among  these  sixty-four,  we  find  the  following 
families  composing  the  stock: 

Saxe  (different  branches)  twenty-one  times.  That  is, 


Pedigree  op  Albert,  Father  op  King  Edward  VII. 

SHOWING  TUB  BXCBI.LBKT  QUALITIES  OK  THIS  BIVCK. 

SuvCOTHi.  StU'Mnamtn. 


01'-  ' !■<  Vil.UII  [»J  (1) (I)  I oulH  |"l  ••  rta  Q).«>  »..il.onjl'l»k[w! 

AhrwulK.  lAim.il  iflncrv.  “ Able  .od  rt6oed-  ••  Olmcore." 

Cood-»*iured.  V*r y Iniellccunl. 


;r 


Difoifd  id  lli<T»iar*. 


V^JwaP**^  Th*  Au^iw ■ w 

llnguiilicd.  Ill>  father,"  iha 


rolw  bowled 


Chirlatle  <*1. 

Konil  of  •ci»ne» 
and  *11. 

) f«)  »rede"<*  l'v  (-1. 

MwleM.eoorteaa* 


Dirt  m childbirth. 


(M  M Victor!  Mj.l.  m CD(J)  EroJ.  I (**| 

Inulleciu*!  And  Prudent,  jut. 


'•’Wflfflw 

An  ciawdlngly 


Amiable,  gr.crlul, » 


(6)(9)  Fyr.rAt  II  (“]. 


Highly  icr.wmi'liihr.1  la 


Saxe-Coburg-Gotha  61 

the  breed  was  perpetuated  to  the  extent  of  about  a third 
from  itself.  We  find  the  name  of  Brunswick  seven  times, 
Mecklenburg  six,  Anhalt  five,  Holstein  four,  Hesse  three, 
Reuss  two,  Solms  two,  Schwarzburg  two,  Baden,  Ben- 
theim,  Castell,  Erbach,  Hohenlohe,  Loewenstein,  Cet- 
linger,  Sayn,  Stolberg,  Waldeck,  and  Zinzendorf  each  one. 
Among  all  these  182  related  persons,  there  is  not  a single 
genius  or  individual  worthy  of  grade  (9)  or  (10)  for  intel- 
lect. The  only  two  in  (8)  are  Ernest  II[80],  of  Gotha 
(died  in  1801),  who  was  a distinguished  astronomer,  and 
the  talented  Louise  Dorothea[91],  of  Saxe-Meiningen,  who 
corresponded  with  Voltaire,  and  was  called  the  “German 
Minerva.”  She  was  the  mother  of  Ernest  lit801,  the 
astronomer.  Also  there  was  no  fool,  imbecile,  or  moral 
degenerate  among  them  all  as  far  as  is  known. 

From  Ernest  the  Pious,  on,  selection  was  constantly 
made  of  men  and  women  of  his  own  type,  so  that  sound 
judgment,  high  moral  qualities,  and  strong  literary  taste 
continually  reappeared,  and  were  never  lost  even  after 
nine  generations.  There  were  among  this  group  of  182 
(counting  a person  every  time  he  occurs)  no  less  than 
eighteen  who  were  authors  or  had  strong  literary  tastes. 
In  the  most  remote  generation  we  find  five  in  thirty-two; 
in  the  next,  three  in  sixteen ; in  the  next,  one  in  eight ; in 
the  next,  two  in  four;  in  the  next,  two  in  two;  and  in  the 
next,  two  in  two;  the  remaining  three  occur  in  the  more 
recent  part  of  the  chart,  and  are  even  more  closely  re- 
lated. Thus  we  see  Ernest  the  Pious,  and  Augustus 
of  Brunswick^1731,  who  were  both  literary,  perpetuated 
down  the  line  in  this  family  by  the  force  of  intermarriage 
and  selection. 

The  intellectual  average  is  everywhere  near  the  mean 


6i  Heredity  in  Royalty 

or  slightly  above,  and  the  moral  average  is  everywhere 
near  the  mean  or  very  much  above  it.  There  being  not 
a single  bad  character  introduced  into  the  blood  directly, 
the  children  apparently  could  not  turn  out  badly.  It  is 
the  cleanest  and  best  pedigree  to  be  found  in  all  royalty, 
and  its  influence  on  European  history  has  come  to  be 
very  great,  since  its  very  merits  have  entitled  it  to  sev- 
eral thrones.  In  fact,  it  can  be  shown  that  no  royal 
family  has  been  able  to  maintain  itself  without  degenera- 
tion, unless  it  has  taken  a good  share  of  Saxe-Coburg 
blood.  The  good  qualities,  if  due  to  heredity  at  all,  in 
Austria,  England,  Germany,  Belgium,  and  Bulgaria,  are 
largely  due  to  it.  It  probably  saved  the  Bourbons  in 
Portugal. 

Thus,  in  tracing  the  pedigree  and  accounting  for  the 
virtues  of  Albert,  consort  of  Queen  Victoria,  we  find  the 
theory  of  mental  and  moral  heredity  sufficiently  sustained 
in  his  case,  as  well  as  in  the  others.  At  least  five  of  the 
close  relations  of  the  consort  may  be  considered  as  al- 
most exact  repetitions  of  his  character.  These  are  his 
grandfather,  Francis[48],  his  two  uncles,  Ferdinand  and 
Leopold  I,  King  of  Belgium,  his  brother,  Ernest,  and 
cousin,  Ferdinand,  of  Portugal. 

The  family  of  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha  shows  by  its  182 
members  here  represented,  that  the  assumption  of  high 
rank  and  power  and  the  consequent  opportunity  for 
ease  and  luxury  do  not  in  the  least  tend  to  degeneracy 
of  the  race  when  the  good  qualities  are  kept  up  by 
marriages  with  stocks  of  equal  value  and  no  vicious  ele- 
ments are  introduced  into  the  breed.  A parallel  to  this 
is  found  in  Prussia  and  also  among  the  kings  of  Portugal 
during  its  days  of  supremacy,  where  for  twelve  genera- 


Saxe-Coburg-Gotha  63 

tions  nearly  every  sovereign  had  all  the  wisdom  and 
strength  required  of  a ruler.* 

* The  grades  for  this  family  are  based  on  all  the  combined  and  averaged 
opinions ; from  Allgemeine  deutsche  Biographie  ; Biographie  universelle  ; 
Lippincott’s;  Limmer,  “Neu  Sach.  Land  ; ” A.  Beck,  “ Gesch.  d.  gotaischen 
Landes  ; ” J.  T.  Philipps,  “ Ernestus  the  Pious;  ” Doran  “ Queens  of  Han- 
over; ” Jesse,  “ Geo.  Ill;  ” “Life  of  Caroline  Matilda.”  See  Appendix. 

The  houses  Saxe-Meiningen  and  Reuss-Ebersdcrf  including  individuals 
from  [85]  to  [114],  give  many  “obscure”  characters  and  ncne  above  mediocrity; 
hence  a detailed  account  of  them  is  omitted.  On  looking  up  their  ancestry 
one  finds  no  distinction. 


CHAPTER  IV 


House  of  Mecklenburg,  1558-1860 

[115] -[172] 

In  order  to  make  at  all  complete  the  pedigrees  of  mod- 
ern royalty,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  this  ancient,  but 
comparatively  unimportant  ducal  house,  which  has  al- 
ways ranked  on  a social  footing  with  even  the  most  pow- 
erful of  royal  families,  and  has  from  time  to  time  inter- 
married with  many  of  them.  Famous  queens  of  Russia, 
Prussia,  and  Great  Britain  have  come  from  this  obscure 
little  province,  among  whom  may  be  mentioned  Char- 
lotte, the  consort  of  King  George  III,  of  England,  and 
Louisa,  the  beautiful  mother  of  the  Emperor  William  I,  of 
Germany.  A study  of  this  house  is  very  instructive  from 
the  scientific  standpoint,  though  in  a purely  negative 
way,  for  although  the  family  has  been  a large  one  and  has 
maintained  social  prestige  since  a.d.  960,  it  has  never 
produced  one  single  great  man,  or  a prince  of  sufficient 
distinction  to  even  be  mentioned  in  Lippincott’s  “ Bio- 
graphical Dictionary.”  Although  the  full  pedigree  of  the 
Mecklenburg  house  is  not  printed  in  these  pages,  it  may 
be  stated  with  assurance  that  this  mediocrity  is  entirely 
in  keeping  with  heredity,  for  there  were  no  distinguished 
strains  introduced  at  any  time  as  a graft  on  the  old  family 
tree.  On  the  moral  side,  however,  the  Mecklenburgs 
have  made  a good  showing,  and  as  far  as  known  have  had 
no  degenerates  among  their  numbers  during  the  period 

64 


Mecklenburg 


65 


here  covered;  quiet,  simple,  domestic  tastes  have  been 
the  characteristics  of  the  members  of  this  family,  so 
that  physiologically  its  influence  has  been  good,  both  on 
royalty  and  European  history.  In  supplying  ancestry  on 
the  maternal  side  for  the  house  of  Hanover,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  go  back  among  the  Mecklenburgs  as  far  as  Duke 
Johnt115],  who  lived  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  became 
the  father  of  the  two  branches  of  the  family,  Schwerin 
and  Giistrow.  The  former  branch  is  composed  of  the 
descendants  of  Adolphus  Frederick  It11®],  whose  son,  the 
second  of  the  same  namet130!,  formed  the  branch  of 
Strelitz,  and  became  the  grandfather  of  Charlotte,  queen 
of  George  III,  of  England.  The  branch  of  Giistrow 
from  John  Alberfl118],  younger  son  of  Johnt115!,  is  impor- 
tant as  containing  two  princesses  who  were  wedded  to  the 
houses  of  Denmark  and  Brunswick,  and  became  ances- 
tors of  various  persons  studied  in  this  work. 

Biographical  dictionaries,  histories,  and  court  me- 
moirs have  been  thoroughly  searched  for  records  of  these 
various  Mecklenburg  branches  covering  individuals  num- 
bered t115!— t172].  AH  were  obscure  or  nearly  so,  mediocre 
or  of  but  slight  celebrity.  For  this  reason,  further  de- 
tails would  have  little  interest.  All,  however,  about  whom 
any  records  were  found,  are  included  in  lists  of  grades, 
and,  therefore,  in  the  final  statistics.  One  branch  of  the 
Mecklenburgs  may  be  seen  on  the  chart  for  the  house  of 
Hanover,  p.  50.* 


* For  Bibliograph,  see  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  V 


House  of  Brunswick 

[173]  - [217] 

The  families  heretofore  studied,  Hanover,  Saxe,  Reuss, 
and  Mecklenburg,  have  given  us  few  striking  traits,  save 
the  marked  inherited  virtues  and  literary  tastes  of  Saxe- 
Coburg- Gotha.  The  house  of  Mecklenburg  was  found 
to  be  both  mediocre  and  moral,  Reuss  would  be  much  the 
same,  while  Hanover  showed  in  each  generation  a cer- 
tain number  of  black  sheep  without  departing  much  from 
the  average  so  far  as  intellectual  ratings  are  concerned. 

The  house  of  Brunswick-Wolfenbiittel,  now  discussed, 
gives  us  a few  brilliant  members,  the  first  yet  met  with; 
but  the  striking  and  interesting  characteristic  of  the 
family  is  the  large  number  of  authors  and  others  with 
strong  literary  tastes,  distributed  over  the  succeeding  gen- 
erations. We  shall  see  that  heredity  perfectly  accounts 
for  both  the  intellectual  distinction  and  the  imaginative 
temperament,  which  here  takes  the  form  of  authorship. 

From  Augustus[173],  of  Brunswick-Wolfenbiittel,  b.  1579, 
d.  1666,  to  Williamt217],  b.  1806,  we  have  forty-four  mem- 
bers of  the  direct  line  who  are  available  for  study.  Among 
these  we  find  in  the  intellectual  grades,  one  in  (9),  Amelia, 
of  Saxe- Wei  mar,  the  distinguished  patron  of  men  of 
learning;  three  in  (8),  William  Adolphus[207],  an  author, 
Charles  William  Ferdinand[202i,  the  celebrated  general  of 

the  Seven  Years’  War,  and  Juliana,  the  notoriously  ambi- 

66 


Brunswick 


6 7 


tious  and  unprincipled  queen  of  Frederick  V,  of  Den- 
mark. Amelia,  of  Saxe-Weimar,  Charles  William  Ferdi- 
nand, and  William  Adolphus  were  nieces  and  nephews  of 
Frederick  the  Great,  and  also  of  the  above-mentioned 
Juliana.  These  are  all  closely  related,  and  the  generation 
to  which  Juliana  belongs  also  contains  Ferdinand  of 
Brunswick,  a celebrated  general  (7);  but  this  “frater- 
nity” does  not  average  quite  as  high  as  the  next,  which 
contains  Amelia,  William  Adolphus,  and  Charles  Wil- 
liam Ferdinand,  which  generation  was  formed  by  a union 
with  the  Hohenzollerns  at  the  summit  of  their  greatness. 

Among  the  forty-fiveh73]_[217]  here  studied,  we  find  five 
distinguished  generals,  and  twelve  who  wrere  either  auth- 
ors, or  showed  distinct  literary  tastes.  The  following 
list  will  show  the  literary  members  of  the  family,  and  the 
generals  as  well,  during  the  first  five  generations. 


First  Ge7ieration . 


(7)  (7)  Augustus  l173]. 

Gentle  disposition. 
An  author, 
b.  1579,  d.  1666. 


=( 7 ) (6)  Sophia  f165]  of  Mecklenburg. 
Religious. 

An  author. 


Second  Genera tion . 


Rudolph  t174]. 

An  author. 

Sibylla  P75].  Clara  C176]. 

An  author.  “ Obscure.” 

(7)  (5)  Anthony  f177]. 

A distinguished 
author. 

b.  1633,  d.  1714. 

(7)  (8)  Ferdinand  Albert  I [178].  Marie  f179]. 

An  author.  “ Obscure.” 

Pious  nature. 

Third  Ge?ieration.  Children  of  [177]. 

(5)  (6)  Elizabeth  C180]. 
An  author. 

“ A poetess  of 
spiritual  songs. ” 

Anne  [181].  Augustus  William  [1821 

” Obscure.”  Religious  and 

devoted  to 
mathematics. 

Augustaf183]. 

“ Obscure.” 

Henrietta  [184].  (5)  (5)  Lewis  Rudolph  [185]. 

“ Obscure.”  Good-natured  and 

popular;  of  no 
great  talents. 

Third  Generation.  Childre7i  of  [178]. 

Sophia  l189]. 

“ Obscure.” 

(7)  (8)  Ferdinand  Albert  II  [190].  Ernest  f191]. 

A somewhat  distin-  “ Obscure.” 

guished  general, 
b.  1680, d.  1735. 

68 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Fourth  Generation.  Children  of  [185]. 


(6)  (8)  Elizabeth  f186]. 
Charming, 
amiable, 
religious, 
intellectual, 
m.  Charles  VI 
of  Austria[022]. 


(6)  (9)  Charlotte  I187]. 
Amiable 
land  estimable, 
m.  Alexis  of 
Russia. 


(5)  (5)  Antoinette  f188]. 

Charming  princess. 
Negative  traits. 
m.Ferd. Albert  II  [190]. 


Fourth  Generation.  Children  of  [19°]  and  [188]. 


(3)  (8)  Charles  [192]. 
Good-natured 
and  upright. 
Of  inferior 
capacity. 

7)  (8)  Lewis  [195]. 

Distinguished 

general. 

Literary. 


(5)  (8)  Ulric  ['**]. 

Fine  character. 


(4)  (9)  Elizabeth  [194]. 
An  author. 


(7)  (9)  Ferdinand  [196J. 
Celebrated 
general. 


(4)  (5)  Louise  P7]. 

A negative 
character. 

m.  William  Augustus 
of  Prussia. 


Sophia  [198]. 
“ Obscure.” 


Christina  [199J. 
“ Obscure.” 


Theresa  [200]. 
“ Obscure.” 


(8)  (3)  Julianaf201]. 

X Ambitious 

and  intriguing. 


Fifth  Generatio7i . Children  of  [192]. 


(8)  (6)  Charles  [202]. 
Celebrated 
general  in  the 
Seven  Years’  War. 
b. 1735, d.  1806. 

(7)  (8)  Frederick  [205]. 

An  author. 

Also  an  excellent 
commander. 

Augusta  [208]. 

An  abbess. 


Caroline  [203]. 
“ Obscure.” 


(7)  (3)  Elizabeth  [206]. 
X Brilliant,  but 
bad  in  morals. 


Maximilian  [209J. 
A hero. 

Died  young. 


(9)  (8)  Amelia  [204]. 
Famous  in 
literature  at 
Weimar. 


(8)  (9)  William  [207]. 
An  author. 
Many  brilliant 
qualities. 


There  were  during  these  five  generations  no  less  than 
twelve  literary  persons  in  the  direct  male  line.  The  per- 
petuation of  this  talent  is  to  be  accounted  for,  first,  by  the 
marriage  of  August[173]  with  the  authoress  Sophia,  of 
Mecklenburg;  second,  that  of  Ferdinand  Albert  II[190]  in 
the  third  generation  with  his  cousin  Antoinette,  of  Bruns- 
wick^881; and  third,  the  marriage  of  Charles[192]  with  Char- 
lotte, the  studious  and  cultured  sister  of  Frederick  the 
Great  {vide  his  relationship,  p.  77).  From  now  on, 
literary  or  military  ability  was  absent  in  the  house  of 


Brunswick 


69 


Brunswick,  and  the  story  of  the  last  two  generations  is 
but  the  sad  extinction  of  a once  illustrious  and  honored 
family.  All  the  members  of  these  later  generations 
brought  themselves  into  prominence  only  in  some  un- 
pleasant way.  A congenital  psycho-neurosis  made  its 
appearance,  the  origin  of  which  may  be  surmised,  though 
not  incontestably  proved. 

The  characteristics  of  the  last  two  generations  of  the 
house  of  Brunswick  are  given  below. 


Sixth  Generation.  Children  of  [202]  ajid  [17]. 


(6)  (3)  Augusta  p10]. 

X Censured 

for  her  immoralities. 


(2)  (?)  George  F3]* 
Suffered  from 
mental  weakness. 
Resigned  the 
inheritance. 


Charles  [211]. 
“ Obscure.” 


(2)  (?)  August  F4]. 
Suffered  from 
mental  weakness. 
Resigned  the 
inheritance. 


(5)  (2)  Caroline  F2]- 
X “ Folly  verging  on 
disordered  intellect.” 
Married  George  IV 
of  England. 

(4)  (4)  William  F5]. 
Dauntless  and 
gloomy  soldier. 
Killed  at  Quatre- 
Bras. 

“Amours  carried  to 
a high  degree.” 


Seventh  Generation . 

Charles  F6]. 

Eccentric. 

His  misrule  caused 
his  expulsion. 


Children  of  [215]. 

William  F7]. 
Remembered  as 
a nymphomaniac, 
but  was  an  intelligent 
administrator. 


This  group  of  relatives  in  the  last  two  generations 
shows  clearly  enough  an  inherited  psycho-neurosis,  still 
one  would  hardly  have  expected  this  massing  of  the  de- 
generacy and  none  free  and  normal,  unless  it  be  [211]. 

The  father  and  mother  of  the  above  sixth  generation 
both  escaped  the  mental  unbalance;  but  the  facts  which 
suggest  an  inherited  tendency  are,  that  George  III,  of 
England,  who  became  insane,  was  an  uncle  of  the  mental 


70  Heredity  in  Royalty 

weaklings  George[213]  and  Augusfi214],  that  Frederick  Wil- 
liam I,  of  Prussia[227i,  was  a great-grandfather  of  these 
children,  and  that  their  father  and  mother  were  second 
cousins,  related  through  the  Palatine  house.  This  ques- 
tion is  discussed  under  Denmark,  where  it  is  shown  to  be 
very  probable  that  all  these  related  persons  who  pos- 
sessed unfortunate  natures,  derived  their  peculiarities  from 
the  same  source. 

Be  that  as  it  may,  we  should  not  expect  the  sixth  gen- 
eration to  have  made  such  a poor  showing,  so  that  these 
last  two  “fraternities”  * must  be  considered  an  exception 
to  the  theory  that  heredity  can  be  relied  on  to  account 
for  mental  and  moral  traits. 

There  are  here,  however,  not  more  than  three  persons 
who  can  be  considered  exceptions.  It  might  be  expected 
that  one  or  two  of  the  children  of  the  sixth  generation 
would  show  undesirable  qualities  in  taking  after  their  ma- 
ternal grandparents,  Frederick,  Prince  of  Walest10],  and 
Augusta,  of  Saxe-Gotha[78].  There  are,  however,  five 
among  the  six,  instead  of  one  or  two. 

The  house  of  Brunswick,  then,  illustrates  a decline 
which  is  often  considered  common  among  aristocratic 
families,  that  is,  a degeneration  possibly  due  to  the  as- 
sumption of  rank  and  power,  and  consequent  tendency 
to  ease,  dissipation,  and  decay. 

Jacoby  f has  tried  to  show  that  the  majority  of  royal 
and  powerful  families  tend  to  end  in  degeneration  and 
sterility.  On  the  contrary,  degeneration  without  a cor- 
responding pollution  of  blood,  a contamination  sufficient 
in  itself  to  explain  the  condition,  I believe  to  be  exceed- 

* See  footnote,  p.  81. 

* 

t Etudes  sur  la  Selection,  etc. 


Brunswick 


7i 


ingly  rare,  and  I may  say  that  there  are  no  instances 
of  such  a degeneration,  with  the  exception  of  this  par- 
tial example,  among  all  the  royal  families  that  I have 
studied. 

The  grades  for  Brunswick  represent  the  combined  and  averaged  opinions 
of  Allgemeine  deutsche  Biographie  ; Lippincott’s  ; Biog.  Univers.  ; Von 
Heinemann,  “ Gesch.  von  Braunschweig,”  vol.  iii;  Wraxall,  “Posthumous 
Mems.  ” ; W.  Coxe  ; D.  Thiebault  ; and  Leibrock,  “ Chronic  des  Fiirsten- 
thums  Blankenburg.”  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  VI 


The  Hohenzollerns  in  Prussia 


[218  — 256] 

The  history  of  the  reigning  family  of  Prussia  is  a long 
series  of  almost  steady  advances  by  which  the  Hohen- 
zollerns have  raised  themselves  from  an  obscure  little 
countship  on  the  borders  of  the  Black  Forest,  to  the 
throne  of  the  chief  kingdom  of  Germany,  and  the  sway 
of  the  imperial  scepter.  Although  ancestors  of  the  pres- 
ent Kaiser  are  mentioned  in  history  as  long  ago  as  the 
twelfth  century,  in  the  reign  of  the  Franconian  emperor, 
Henry  IV,  it  is  only  comparatively  recently  that  the 
Hohenzollerns  have  ranked  with  important  royal  families 
of  Europe.  The  ancient  counts  were  a thrifty  lot,  and 
by  marriages  with  heiresses  and  by  other  means,  slowly 
enlarged  their  dominions.  In  1363,  Frederick  V was 
raised  to  the  rank  of  prince.  In  the  next  century  the 
Electrate  of  Brandenburg  was  obtained  by  Frederick  VI 
in  return  for  loans  to  the  Emperor  Sigismond. 

Thus,  little  by  little,  the  family  influence  was  extended ; 
still,  great  and  distinguished  warriors  were  not  born  to 
the  house  of  Hohenzollern.  In  fact,  during  all  the  first 
six  hundred  years  of  their  history  down  to  the  time  of 
the  Great  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  only  one  member  of 
the  family,  Albert  Achilles,  was  what  one  might  call  a 
very  distinguished  man.  From  Albert  Achilles  to  the 
Great  Elector  seven  generations  passed;  and  in  the  per- 

72 


Prussia 


73 


sonality  of  the  latter  we  see  the  first  of  that  brilliant  group 
who  made  Prussia  one  of  the  important  powers  of  Europe. 

The  early  history  of  the  house  will  not  be  considered; 
but  the  portion  which  will  be  treated  of,  begins  with  John 
Sigismond[218],  of  Brandenburg,  who  died  in  1610,  and 
ends  with  the  last  generation,  which  at  present  is  no 
longer  in  the  land  of  the  living,  to  which  belonged  the 
Emperor  Frederick  William  I[258]. 

Although  217  persons  have  been  dealt  with  in  the  vari- 
ous male  lines  already  studied  in  the  previous  chapters, 
and  several  hundred  more  have  been  introduced  as  an- 
cestors on  the  various  maternal  lines,  there  have  been 
but  two  persons  yet  encountered  who  were  remarkably 
brilliant,  or  worthy  of  grades  (9)  and  (10).  We  now 
come  to  a family  containing  many  in  the  highest  grades, 
and  forming  one  end  of  a long  chain  of  genuises  which 
includes  the  greater  proportion  of  all  of  such  stamp  found 
anywhere  in  modern  royalty.  If  we  should  make  a great 
chart  including  all  the  countries  studied,  and  place  on  it 
every  person  in  his  proper  blood  relationship  to  every 
other  person,  we  should  find  two  or  three  little  areas 
where  nearly  all  of  the  most  illustrious  names  would  be 
located.  One  of  the  seregions  (given  in  the  chart  here), 
and  indeed  the  largest,  would  begin  with  the  families  of 
Montmorency,  Conde,  and  Coligny,  include  the  house  of 
Orange,  and  end  with  the  Hohenzollerns  in  Prussia. 

The  perpetuation  of  these  intellectual  traits  can  be 
sufficiently  accounted  for  by  the  selection  of  the  most 
highly  endowed  in  each  generation,  as  ancestors  for  the 
next.  There  were  others  who  were  mediocre  not  in- 
cluded in  this  chart.  We  need  introduce  no  further 


causes. 


74 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Since  the  interesting  point  in  this  chapter  is  the  origin 
and  inheritance  of  ability,  we  may  pass  quickly  over  the 
first  two  generations  which  contain  John  Sigismond[218] 
and  George  William[219],  grandfather  and  father  of  the 
Great  Elector[224].  George  William  was  especially  weak 
for  a Hohenzollern,  and  in  no  other  paternal  ancestor  is 
there  any  evidence  that  the  talents  of  the  Great  Elector 
came  from  his  father’s  family.  On  looking  up  his  pedi- 
gree, however,  one  finds  that  his  mother  was  a grand- 
daughter of  William  the  Silent. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Great  Elector, 
of  Brandenburg,  was  one  of  the  numerous  geniuses  de- 
scended from  William  the  Silent,  even  if  he  did  stand 
as  far  removed  as  a great-grandson.  William  the  Silent 
left  no  less  than  thirty-two  grandchildren,  so  that  it  might 
be  expected  that  among  the  many  in  the  near  generations 
some  few  might  revert  again  to  the  highest  grade. 

The  Great  Elector  was  also  a first  cousin  of  the 
famous  Prince  Rupert  and  also  of  that  cavalier’s  two 
sisters,  Sophia,  Duchess  of  Brunswick  (io),  and  Eliza- 
beth, of  Palatine  (9),  a very  profound  intellect.  This 
relationship  was  by  way  of  Frederick  IV,  of  Palatine,  who 
had  married  a daughter  of  William  the  Silent  (10). 

Every  marriage  from  now  on  to  Frederick  the  Great, 
brings  in  again  this  brilliant  strain  containing  the  cele- 
brated names  in  the  families  of  Montmorency,  Coligny, 
and  Orange.  Frederick  William,  the  Great  Elector[224], 
was  himself  a man  of  the  highest  attainments  and  force 
of  character.  He  received  his  country  in  an  extremely 
desolate  condition,  and  accomplished  the  greatest  results 
with  the  least  resources.  He  was  considered  one  of  the 
ablest  men  of  his  day.  He  married  his  cousin  Louisa[279], 


A GREAT  GROUP  OF  GENIUSES. 


CONDE. 


Montmorency. 


Coligny. 


(8)  (6)  Louis  1 p35]. 
Distinguished 
general. 

(8)  (6)  Henry'  I p36]. 
Brilliant 
soldier. 

I 

(7)  (5)  Henry  II  P41]. 
Ambitious 
and  successful. 


(8)  (5)  Anne  [322J. 
Constable 
of  France. 

I 

(8)  (6)  Henry  I f324]. 
Distinguished 
legislator. 

: (6)  (8)  Charlotte  [332]. 
Strong  heroic 
character. 


Louise. 


Gaspard  I. 

Marshal  of  France. 
Able  commander. 


Orange. 

(io)  (io)  William  the  Silent  [268]. 
“ Illustrious  founder 
of  the  Dutch  Republic.” 


(io)  (4)  Louis  the  Great  p43].  (10)  (4)  Anne  p42]. 

Celebrated  Duchess  of  Longueville. 

general.  Great  ability. 


(7)  (7)  Juliana  [271]. 
Strong 
character. 


(g)(8)  Gaspard  II. 

Renowned 
French  admiral. 

-( 7 ) (8)  Louise. 

Remarkable  powers  of 
mind. 

Angelic  disposition. 


(9)  (8)  Maurice  p69]. 

“ One  of  the  great- 
est captains  of 
modern  times.” 


(8)  (7)  Frederick  Henry  p97]. 
Distinguished 
Stadtholder. 


Palatine. 
(6)  (7)  Frederick  V. 
Good, though 
mediocre. 


(9)  (7)  Elizabeth. 

Remarkably 

intellectual. 


(10)  (7)  Sophia  of  Brunswick. 
Great  force  of  charac- 
ter and  intellect. 


r 

P] 


(5)  (6)  Elizabeth. 

Remarkably 
good  character. 

I 

Hohenzollern. 

(10)  (5)  Great  Elector  [224].  =: 

Great  capacity  in 
peace  and  war. 


(8)  (6)  William  II  [278]. 

Of  brilliant  promise. 
Died  young. 


(8)  (9)  Sophia  Charlotte  p], 

“ The  Philosophical 
Queen.”  Very  intellec- 
tual and  vigorous. 


(6)  (7)  Louisa  [279]. 
Excellent 
character. 


(3)  (s)  Frederick  I p26]. 
Ostentatious  and 
childish. 


(9)  (8)  William  III  P83]. 

One  of  the  greatest  of 
England’s  kings. 

A precocious  genius. 


(7)  (7)  Dorothea  p]. 

= (7)  (3)  Frederick  William  I p27]. 

Ambitious,  proud, 

X Eccentric,  tyrannical, 

virtuous  and  refined. 

avaricious. 

A shrewd  administrator. 

(10)  (4)  Frederick  p29] 
the  Great. 

Of  the  highest  ability. 


(9)  (9)  Henry  [236]. 

Extraordinary  ability 
in  peace  and  war. 


(10)  (10)  Sophia  Ulrica  p33]. 
“ The  Minerva  of  the 
North.”  Extraordi- 
nary intellect. 

(9)  (4)  Gustav  us  ill  p28] 
of  Sweden. 

One  of  the  most  bril- 
liant of  all  royalty. 


(9)  (8)  Amelia  p35].. 

Remarkable  intellect. 
Noted  as  a musician. 


Prussia 


75 


a granddaughter  of  William  the  Silent  (io),  and  daugh- 
ter of  Frederick  Henry  (8),  the  distinguished  stadtholder. 
She  was  also  a great-granddaughter  of  Gaspard  de 
Coligny  (9),  the  great  admiral  of  France.  Louisa  was 
herself  a strong  character  of  a “mild,  sympathetic,  and 
deeply  religious  nature.” 

The  only  child  of  the  Great  Elector  and  Louisa,  who 
reached  maturity,  was  Frederick  I,  of  Prussia[22e],  who 
did  not  realize  the  promise  of  such  an  inbreeding  of  bril- 
liant qualities.  If  more  children  had  been  born,  doubt- 
less some  might  have  reduplicated  their  illustrious  sire. 
This  son,  Frederick,  spent  most  of  his  petty  thoughts  on 
rank  and  ostentation,  and  only  advanced  the  family  pres- 
tige in  so  far  as  he  realized  the  ambition  of  his  life  in 
receiving  the  crown  of  Prussia.  Thus  the  Hohenzollerns 
were  now  kings.  Frederick  married  his  second  cousin, 
a daughter  of  the  same  great  Duchess  of  Brunswick  (10) 
mentioned  above,  so  we  have  again  a breeding-in  of  the 
best  stock  of  Orange.  Her  father  also  was  a talented 
man,  Ernest  Augustus,  of  Hanover[l],  and  falls  in  grade 
(7)  for  intellect.  This  queen  of  Frederick  I[228]  was 
Sophia  Charlotte.  She  had  high  ideals,  and  an  important 
influence  over  political  actions.  She  was  really  pro- 
foundly interested  in  astronomy,  archseology,  and  moral 
philosophy,  and  formed  a warm  friendship  with  Leib- 
nitz. She  is  generally  called  the  “Philosophical  Queen,” 
and  would,  from  the  testimony  regarding  her,  be  placed 
in  a grade  as  high  as  (9)  for  intellect  were  her  name  in 
Lippincott’s  “Biographical  Dictionary.”  Since,  to  gain 
the  advantage  of  an  arbitrary  and  impersonal  standard, 
I have  not  placed  in  the  two  highest  grades  names  which 
do  not  appear  in  Lippincott’s,  and  also  receive  high 


76 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


praise  for  mentality,  the  “Philosophical  Queen”  must 
be  ranked  in  grade  (8). 

Her  only  son  was  Frederick  William  I of  Prussia[227], 
the  eccentric  old  father  of  the  great  Frederick,  and  a 
most  remarkable  character.  He  was  not  very  cultivated, 
and  especially  despised  literature,  but  was  a man  of  iron 
will,  with  great  ability  in  certain  lines,  and  succeeded  in 
carrying  out  his  strange  determinations.  He  it  was,  who 
scoured  all  the  countries  of  Europe  to  secure  the  tallest 
men  to  add  to  his  giant  Potsdam  Guard.  Avaricious  to 
an  extreme,  he  cared  only  for  saving  money  and  forming 
and  drilling  an  army;  and  although,  as  Macaulay  says, 
“such  eccentricities  were  never  seen  outside  of  a mad- 
house,” he  nevertheless  left  the  country  in  a stronger 
condition  than  he  found  it. 

Now  in  its  turn,  the  marriage  of  Frederick  William 
I[227]  bred  in  again  the  same  Orange  strain.  His  queen 
was  his  first  cousin,  Sophia  Dorothea,  of  Hanover[9],  a 
granddaughter  of  the  same  Sophia,  Duchess  of  Bruns- 
wick (io).  She  was  an  ambitious,  proud,  and  virtuous 
woman,  somewhat  above  the  average  in  intellect.  There- 
fore, now,  this  great  stock  is  repeated  four  times  in  the 
pedigree.  Besides  this  we  have  four  other  great-grand- 
parents of  high  standing. 

Thus  the  pedigree  of  Frederick  the  Great  stands  for 
intellect: 


O 

■n 

6D 

3 

to 


on 


w 

c 

3 

1. 

o’ 


W 

c 

3 

S 


O 

5* 

o> 

e 

n> 


( IO)  (6)  (7)  (io) 

(3)  (8) 

V y ' 

(7) 


(7)  (io)  (7)  (8) 

(4)  (ST 

' V ' 

(7) 


~v 


Prussia 


77 


It  will  be  noticed  that  only  two  are  below  mediocrity. 
From  this  remarkable  union  were  produced,  out  of  ten 
children,  five  of  the  most  illustrious  persons  contained  in 
this  study.  These  were:  Frederick  the  Great  (io); 
Henry,  his  almost  equally,  great  brother  (9);  Char- 
lotte, Duchess  of  Brunswick  (8),  who  had  a remarkable 
mind,  literary  tastes,  and  fine  character  (Wraxall  said  of 
her  that  he  scarcely  ever  met  a woman  in  any  walk  of 
life  who  possessed  an  understanding  more  enlarged  and 
cultivated);  Amelia  (9),  “endowments  of  mind  said  to 
have  been  extraordinary,”  had  a remarkable  talent  for 
music;*  and  Louisa  Ulrica,  Queen  of  Sweden  (10), 
called  the  “Minerva  of  the  North.”  The  other  five  in- 
cluded Frederica  Sophia,  of  Baireuth,  whose  memoirs  are 
considered  very  interesting. 

Frederick  the  Great  also  had  a number  of  nephews 
and  one  niece  who  were  very  richly  endowed  mentally. 
As  some  of  these  would  escape  mention  elsewhere,  they 
are  here  enumerated: 

1.  Gustavus  III,  of  Sweden  (9). 

2.  Sophia  Albertina,  his  sister  (8). 

3.  Augustus  Frederick  of  Prussia  (8);  reputed  the  first  artil- 

lery officer  in  the  Prussian  army. 

4.  Louis,  a son  of  Ferdinand  of  Prussia  (8);  distinguished 

talents. 

5.  Amelia,  Duchess  of  Saxe-Weimar  (9) ; the  distinguished 

patron  of  genius  and  learning,  of  Wieland,  Herder, 

Goethe,  etc. 

6.  Charles  William  Ferdinand  (8),  of  Brunswick;  “celebrated 

commander.” 

7.  William  Adolphus  (8),  of  Brunswick;  versatile,  brilliant, 

and  an  author. 


* Lippincott’s. 


78 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Such  a union  of  high  talents,  found  here  about  Fred- 
erick the  Great,  is  certainly  remarkable,  and  bears  out 
Gabon’s  idea  that  of  all  great  men,  the  greatest  com- 
manders have  the  greatest  number  of  eminent  relations. 

Frederick  the  Great  had  in  the  first  degree  of  rela- 
tionship, in  spite  of  having  no  direct  descendants,  one 
in  (io),  two  in  (9),  and  one  in  (8).  In  the  second  de- 
gree, two  in  (9),  and  five  in  (8).  Three  of  his  great-grand- 
parents were  in  grade  (10).  It  is  very  easy  to  account 
for  this  high  wave  of  intellect,  for  in  the  first  place,  among 
the  sixty-two  ancestors  who  lie  in  five  degrees  of  remote- 
ness, one  finds  only  two  in  a grade  below  (4)  and  only 
one  below  (5).  These  were  Frederick  I,  of  Prussia,  and 
George  William,  of  Brunswick,  who  were  in  (3).  Both 
lie  remote.  This  display  is  indeed  remarkable,  and  I 
doubt  if  the  same  would  be  true  of  any  other  chart,  or 
of  any  other  family  that  has  ever  lived.  In  the  second 
place,  one  sees  the  house  of  Orange  four  times  in  the 
fourth  generation.  This  of  itself  would  probably  create 
only  a small  effect,  since  this  entire  generation  is  consid- 
ered to  have  only  6^  per  cent  of  influence,  but  we  see 
here  a fortunate  selection  of  the  best,  and  four  of  its 
greatest  descendants  are  found  among  the  third  degree 
of  remoteness,  and  one  in  the  second  degree.  Then  the 
remaining  part  of  the  pedigree  is  filled  in  with  what  is 
best  in  the  house  of  Brunswick,  together  with  Eleanor 
d’Olbreuze,  a remarkable  character*  .She  was  of  a 
good  Dutch  Huguenot  family. 

Among  the  forty  included  in  this  group  (all  ancestors 
of  Frederick  the  Great  to  third  degree,  with  nieces  and 
nephews),  we  find  five  in  (10),  four  in  (9),  six  in  (8), 

* See  Wilkins,  u Love  of  an  Uncrowned  Queen.” 


Prussia 


79 


seven  in  (7),  or  nine  of  these  forty  are  “geniuses”  (9)  or 
(10);  and  twenty- two  are  high  in  the  talent  class.  There 
are  strong  literary  and  musical  inclinations  among  the 
descendants,  and  hereditary  influence  can  be  traced 
through  both  the  mother  and  paternal  grandmother  of 
Frederick  the  Great,  straight  back  to  the  house  of 
Orange  from  which  it  probably  came.  This  is  in  spite 
of  the  fact  that  Frederick’s  father  was  entirely  hostile  to 
literature.  The  bent  appeared  decidedly  in  five  of  the 
ten.  In  the  others  it  seems  to  have  been  absent.  The 
pedigree  calls  for  about  half  of  them  to  show  this  imagina- 
tive type  of  mind,  if  we  couple  to  the  pedigree  this  idea: 
that  strong  mental  characteristics  do  not  freely  blend, 
but  tend  to  jump  about,  and,  if  appearing  at  all,  appear 
in  almost  full  force  in  those  who  are  so  fortunate  or  un- 
fortunate as  to  inherit  them  in  any  conspicuous  degree. 

Before  closing  this  chapter  it  may  be  of  interest  to 
glance  back  at  this  wonderful  chain  of  great  names,  here 
extending  through  more  generations  than  has  probably 
ever  been  the  case  in  the  history  of  the  world.  It  is  par- 
ticularly suggestive  of  what  might  be  done  with  the 
human  race  were  mankind  ever  so  inclined. 

Starting  with  Gaspard  de  Coligny,  Marshal  of  France, 
who  died  in  1522,  we  can  trace  genius  for  the  leader- 
ship of  men  through  no  less  than  ten  generations  as  far 
as  Gustavus  III,  of  Sweden,  and  Charles  William 
Ferdinand,  the  celebrated  commander  in  the  Seven  Years’ 
War,  who,  as  nephews  of  Frederick  the  Great,  are  the 
last  of  the  long  line  of  intellectual  princes.  Gaspard’s 
son,  the  great  Admiral  of  France,  even  exceeded  his 
father.  The  daughter,  Louisa,  married  William  the 
Silent.  William  the  Silent,  himself  one  of  the  greatest 


8o 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


men  in  all  history,  was  the  father  of  Maurice,  “ one  of  the 
greatest  captains  in  modern  times,”  and  also  of  Frederick 
Henry,  celebrated  Stadtholder  in  Holland  and  able  states- 
man. Frederick  Henry  had  a daughter  Louisa  who  mar- 
ried the  Great  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  who  was  a de- 
scendant of  William  the  Silent.  The  Great  Elector’s 
son  married  the  “Philosophical  Queen,”  who  was  another 
descendant  of  the  same  stem;  and  she  was  the  grand- 
mother of  Frederick  the  Great  and  also  of  Louisa  Ulrica 
the  brilliant  mother  of  Gustavus  III,  of  Sweden,  whose 
talents  were  phenomenal,  and  who  is  said  to  have  been 
“so  accomplished  a gentleman  that  there  was  scarcely  a 
professor  of  literature  or  any  of  the  liberal  arts,  but  he 
was  able  to  excel  each  in  his  own  peculiar  study.”  * 

This  long  perpetuation  of  genius  does  not  prove  too 
much.  It  does  not  mean  that  other  forces  than  heredity 
must  have  been  at  work,  or  we  should  expect  reversion 
to  mediocrity  again;  for  all  of  these  were  but  a few  out 
of  the  many  descendants  of  the  original  Gaspard,  and 
many  of  the  others  who  were  but  mediocrities  more  or 
less,  if  averaged  with  these,  would  give  us  that  reversion 
to  the  mean  which  the  “Law  of  Ancestral  Heredity” 
calls  for.  All  the  way  down  the  line  we  see  the  mar- 
riages bringing  in  again  the  brilliant  stock,  so  that  in 
each  generation  some  few  repeat  again  the  illustrious 
personalities  of  their  ancestors. 

Summary  of  the  Hohenzollerns 

From  John  Sigismond[218],  of  the  sixteenth  century,  to 
the  Emperor  Frederick  William12561,  of  the  nineteenth,  we 
have  thirty-nine  members  in  the  direct  line,  who  arrived 

* Brown,  “ Northern  Courts,”  vol.  i,  p.  341. 


Prussia 


at  adult  years.  To  this  number  we  may  add  the  ances- 
tors brought  into  the  family  on  the  maternal  side,  in  each 
generation. 

It  is  more  convenient  to  treat  this  house  under  two 
subdivisions:  (a)  The  six  generations  down  to  Frederick 
the  Great;  ( b ) The  four  subsequent  generations.  By 
making  these  twTo  divisions,  we  at  once  divide  the  family 
history  into  a brilliant  period  and  a mediocre  period. 
The  first  contains  the  illustrious  Orange  and  Palatine 
ancestry  already  described;  the  second  is  made  up  of  an- 
cestry devoid  of  genius. 

(a)  By  adding  sixty-three  ancestors  and  collaterals  on 
the  maternal  side,  to  the  first  six  generations,  we  can 
bring  together  a group  of  eighty-two  who  may  be  con- 
trasted with  the  eighty-nine  on  the  Hanover  chart  (p.  50) 
On  the  Hanover  chart  there  is  but  one  in  a grade  as  high 
as  (9).  Here  we  find  ten  as  high  as  (9).  There  was  but 
one  in  grade  (8)  among  the  Hanover  connections.  Here 
we  find  seven  in  grade  (8).  This  appearance  of  high 
intellectual  variation  has  already  been  sufficiently  dwelt 
upon  and  explained. 

As  regards  the  peculiar  idealistic  and  imaginative  type 
of  mind  found  in  Frederick  the  Great’s  “fraternity,”* 
environment  could  not  properly  account  for  either  the 
appearance  of  the  artistic  taste  or  the  fact  that  only  half  of 
the  children  showed  it.  This  literary  bent  should  be  com- 
pared with  Hanover,  where  eighty-seven  persons  show 
only  four  authors,  and  these  are  every  one  of  them  in  the 
extreme  background,  and  consequently  do  not  influence 

* This  word  is  frequently  used  in  these  pages  in  the  sense  proposed  by 
Galton — as  a generatio  r.of  brothers  and  sisters,  equivalent  to  the  German 
©efdjroifter. 


82 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


the  family  (or  male  line)  itself.  Among  those  in  the 
house  of  Hanover,  quite  a number  of  the  princes  were 
fond  of  study,  but  none  were  authors. 

(' b ) Frederick  the  Great  and  his  brother  Henry  left 
no  descendants.  In  the  next  generation  the  great  quali- 
ties died  out  in  the  house,  because  only  two  of  the  males 
had  heirs,  and  these  were  not  the  gifted  members  of  the 
family.  One,  William  Augustus[234],  was  weak  and  fond 
of  pleasure,  and  was  the  son  who  resembled  his  grand- 
father Frederick  I.  He  married  Louisa[197],  a daughter 
of  Ferdinand  Albert  II,  of  Brunswick,  an  insipid  woman 
of  no  gifts,  with  an  ancestry  virtuous  and  literary,  but  not 
talented  politically.*  They  had  a son,  Frederick  Wil- 
liam lit2381,  and  a daughter.  The  son,  who  had  the  best 
of  education  and  example,  was  a virtuous  man  of  average 
capacity,  but  timid  and  irresolute.  As  Frederick  Wil- 
liam II,  who  was  not  brilliant,  married  a woman  below 
the  average  capacity  and  of  a mediocre  family,  by  the 
next  generation  all  brilliancy  was  removed  to  one  great- 
great-grandparent,  out  of  the  sixteen  the  children  had, 
and  to  eight  of  the  thirty-two  great-great-great-grand- 
parents, which  according  to  the  laws  of  heredity  would 
be  a factor  of  extremely  small  value;  so  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  it  never  came  out  again  in  this  line,  unless  the 
present  Kaiser  be  equal  to  them  and  represent  extreme 
reversion.  His  abilities  are  perhaps  derived  from  fresh 
combinations. 

Among  the  collaterals  similar  dilution,  or  lack  of  any 
issue  at  all,  can  be  shown.  Thus,  one  of  the  greatest 
strains  of  intellect  the  world  has  ever  seen  finally  disap- 
peared. Quite  unconsciously  on  their  part  it  was  formed. 


* See  Brunswick. 


Prussia 


83 


Its  formation  appears  to  be  due  to  a remarkable  combina- 
tion of  ingredients  of  blood.  Three  sources  of  the  best 
from  the  great  house  of  Orange  were  united  with  the 
Great  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  who  probably  himself 
received  his  genius  from  the  house  of  Orange.  Its  dis- 
appearance might  well  have  been  due  to  dilution  in  some 
branches,  to  accident  or  sterility  in  others.  Probably  the 
only  strain  in  modern  times,  in  royalty  or  out,  that  can 
show  such  a quantity  of  eminent  relationship,  and  of 
such  a high  degree,  is  the  same  region  about  William 
the  Silent  that  we  have  shown  we  consider  the  origin  of 
this. 

The  relation  of  this  blood  to  the  course  of  Prussian, 
German,  and  even  to  the  world’s  history,  should  not  be 
overlooked.  If  it  is  accepted  that  these  characters  were 
what  they  were  owing  largely  to  heredity,  then  it  follows 
that  Prussia’s  rise  under  the  Great  Elector,  her  growth 
under  Frederick  William  I’s  vigorous  policy,  and  subse- 
quent greater  growth  under  Frederick  II,  together  with 
the  Seven  Years’  War,  must,  since  historians  all  ascribe 
great  influence  to  these  sovereigns,  find  their  ultimate 
explanation  in  these  charts  of  descent.  The  theories  of 
heredity  appear  to  be  very  nearly  satisfied.  If  we  con- 
sider that  opportunities  or  the  times  were  the  chief  causes, 
we  must  have  a wonderful  knowledge  of  all  the  intricate 
effects  of  these  media  in  order  to  explain  the  facts  in  this 
way.  The  theory  of  chances  seems  here  to  be  in  danger, 
while  the  theory  of  chances  can  be  shown  to  be  pretty 
well  satisfied  by  the  laws  of  heredity. 

Regarding  the  moral  characteristics  of  the  Hohenzol- 
lerns,  there  were  only  a few  who  fell  short.  It  corre- 
sponds perfectly  in  a general  way  with  the  pedigree.  It 


84 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


is  noteworthy  that  here,  as  in  Hanover,  no  atrocious  and 
violent  characters  appeared  in  the  family,  nor  were  any 
introduced  in  the  pedigree  from  other  families.  In  this 
respect  these  countries  should  be  contrasted  with  Rus- 
sia, Spain,  France,  and  Italy. 

Another  instructive  lesson  to  be  drawn  from  the  Hohen- 
zollerns  is  that  blue-blooded  families  do  not  necessarily 
degenerate.  Here  we  have  a line  that  for  a thousand 
years  has  occupied  an  exclusive  position,  and  yet  we  find 
it  composed  to-day  of  active,  intelligent,  and  moral  per- 
sons. We  cannot  rightly  affirm  that  this  and  the  houses 
of  Saxe-Coburg,  Nassau,  and  Mecklenburg  are  but  ex- 
ceptions which  prove  the  rule,  for  a careful  analysis  shows 
us  that  all  these  excellent  outcomes  are  to  be  expected 
from  a study  of  their  many  different  good  ingredients  of 
blood  which  have  accidentally  been  brought  together  from 
various  countries  of  Europe. 

The  grades  in  this  chapter  are  based  on  all  the  combined  and  averaged 
opinions  of  the  following:  Allgemeine  deutsche  Biog.;  Lippincott’s;  L.  von 
Ranke,  “Prussia”;  Biog.  Univers.;  Wraxall;  Ency.  Britannica;  Coxe;  Vehse, 
“Prussia”;  “ Thiebault  Souvenirs,”  etc.;  H.  Tuttle,  “ History  of  Prussia”; 
Von  Heinemann,  “ Gesch.  Braunschweig”;  Carlyle’s  “Frederick  the  Great”; 
E.  H.  Hudson,  “Life  and  Times  of  Louisa,  Queen  of  Prussia.”  See  Ap- 
pendix. 


CHAPTER  VII 


House  of  Nassau 

A.  Elder  Branch  of  Orange , 1487-1708 
U57]  — [283] 

Of  all  royal  families,  perhaps  none  ever  exceeded  in 
heroism  and  genius  the  princely  house  of  Nassau-Orange. 
Embroiled  in  the  turmoils  of  the  Reformation,  and  the 
struggle  for  national  independence,  the  descendants  of 
old  William  of  Nassau  became  famous  as  men  of  tena- 
city and  valor,  and  as  women  of  energy  and  goodness. 
In  the  early  period  of  the  history  of  the  house,  a chief  of 
the  family  now  and  then  enlarged  his  dominions  by  mar- 
riage with  a wealthy  heiress,  or  played  some  role  of  im- 
portance in  the  history  of  the  times,  but  only  during  the 
years  of  William  the  Silent  and  after,  do  we  find  truly 
illustrious  names  in  the  family  of  Nassau-Orange. 

From  William  the  Elder  (1487-1559)  to  the  Prince  of 
Orange,  who  became  William  III,  of  England,  we  have 
five  generations,  and  twenty-seven  persons  in  the  male 
line  who  reached  adult  years.  Among  them  we  find 
five  military  generals  extending  through  the  last  four 
generations:  William  the  Silent  (10),  Maurice  (9), 
Frederick  Henry  (8),  William  II,  Prince  of  Orange  (8), 
and  William  III,  of  England  (9).  Besides  these  we 
have  seen  in  the  house  of  Hohenzollern  how  the  same 
genius  was  transmitted  much  further;  but  this  is  neces- 

85 


86 


Heredity  in  Royalty 

sarily  as  far  as  it  can  be  traced  in  the  male  line  here,  as 
this  became  extinct  with  the  death  of  William  III. 

This  group  of  five  remarkable  characters  exhausts  the 
list  as  far  as  the  name  of  Orange  is  concerned.  These 
five  are,  however,  but  a few  in  the  long  chain  of  distin- 
guished characters,  already  referred  to  under  Hohenzol- 
lern,  which  group  may  be  called  the  main  intellectual 
strain  of  modern  royalty.  One  end  of  this  chain  is  seen 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Frederick  the  Great  ; the  other 
end,  or  beginning,  is  found  in  the  family  of  Montmorency ; 
and  the  middle  of  the  chain  — equally  strong  with  the 
others  — is  here  among  the  relatives  of  the  great  founder 
of  the  Dutch  Republic.  (See  foregoing  chart.)  The 
above-mentioned  great  men  of  Orange  were  father,  two 
sons,  grandson,  and  great-grandson. 

William  the  Silent,  who  was  the  first  of  this  remark- 
able line,  was  in  every  way  one  of  the  greatest  of  princes 
in  modern  Europe.  Whatever  may  be  his  rating,  when 
compared  with  all  men  of  all  time,  in  comparison  with 
other  royalty,  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  he  be- 
longs, both  mentally  and  morally,  in  the  highest  grades. 
“In  1555,  when  he  was  but  little  over  twenty-two  years 
of  age,  he  was  preferred  to  the  command  at  a critical 
moment  of  the  emperor’s  career,  over  the  heads  of  vet- 
eran soldiers  much  senior  to  himself.”  * “His  enemies,” 
Motley  writes,  “never  contested  the  subtility  and  breadth 
of  his  intellect,  his  adroitness  and  capacity  in  conducting 
state  affairs,  and  the  profoundness  of  his  views.  In 
many  respects  his  surname,  The  Silent,’  was  a misnomer. 
William  of  Orange  was  neither  silent  nor  taciturn,  yet 
these  are  the  epithets  which  will  be  for  ever  associated 

* Frederick  Harrison. 


Nassau-Orange 


87 


with  the  man  who  in  private  was  the  most  affable,  cheer- 
ful, and  delightful  of  companions,  and  who,  on  a thousand 
public  occasions,  was  to  prove  himself,  both  by  pen  and 
speech,  the  most  eloquent  man  of  his  age.” 

The  father  and  mother  of  William  the  Silent  were 
both  excellent  characters,  and  the  son  doubtless  inherited 
many  good  qualities  from  them,  but  neither  the  parents 
or  other  ancestors  were  in  any  way  remarkable,  so  Wil- 
liam the  Silent  must  be  considered  a new  variation  (mu- 
tation or  sport).  Although  he  himself  cannot  be  taken  as 
an  instance  of  heredity,  all  his  descendants  can.  William 
the  Silent  married  four  times  and  left  eleven  children 
who  reached  the  age  of  thirty  years.  In  the  character  of 
the  mothers  of  these  children  and  in  their  immediate  an- 
cestors we  find  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  genius  of 
Orange  was  perpetuated  without  reversion  to  mediocrity. 

His  son  Maurice,  the  famous  general,  had  for  his 
maternal  grandfather  his  namesake,  the  celebrated  Elec- 
tor of  Saxony  (9)’  and  for  a great-grandfather,  Philip 
Landgrave  of  Hesse  (7),  called  the  Magnanimous. 

This  second  son  of  William  the  Silent,  Maurice, 
Prince  of  Orange,  surpassed  in  some  ways  even  his  father. 
His  character,  however,  was  less  strong.  In  the  “Lives 
of  Prince  of  Orange,”  we  find  the  following  paragraph: 
“This  great  captain  has  falsified  the  proverb  which  says 
that  the  children  of  heroes  are  generally  good  for  nothing, 
for  though  he  was  the  son  of  a most  excellent  father,  who 
left  behind  him  an  immortal  glory,  yet  he  not  only  equaled 
him  in  his  prudence  and  greatness  of  soul,  but  likewise 
surpassed  him  in  the  art  military,  and  in  his  great  per- 
formances.” 

Frederick  Henry  (8),  the  younger  brother  of  Maurice, 


88  Heredity  in  Royalty 

less  bold  and  brilliant,  is,  however,  to  be  regarded  as 
scarcely  less  capable,  since  he  was  more  uniformly  suc- 
cessful. He  succeeded  his  brother  as  Stadtholder,  where 
his  administrative  talents  won  for  him  a lasting  reputa- 
tion of  a very  high  order.  Frederick  Henry  was  a child 
of  the  fourth  marriage  of  William  the  Silent.  His  mother 
was  a daughter  of  Gaspard  de  Coligny  (9),  the  great 
admiral  of  France,  himself  of  distinguished  stock,  and 
the  most  remarkable  member  of  the  Montmorency- 
Coligny  combination.  Frederick  Henry  married  Amelia, 
of  Solms,  a woman  of  fine  character  and  high  mental  en- 
dowments. It  is  not  surprising  that  his  son  William  II 
(8),  who  died  young,  should  have  been  a prince  of  brilliant 
parts  and  exceeding  high  promise.  There  were  four  sis- 
ters of  William  II,  but  these  were  not  far  from  mediocrity. 

In  the  next  generation,  William  II,  of  Orange,  married 
Mary,  a daughter  of  Charles  I,  of  England,  so  that  the 
relatively  poor  blood  of  the  Stuarts  was  introduced.  He 
had  but  one  child,  William  III  (9),  who  became  one  of 
the  greatest  of  England’s  kings.  That  the  last  of  the 
line  took  from  the  paternal  rather  than  the  maternal  side 
may  be  considered  good  fortune,  to  say  the  least. 

Thus,  besides  the  remarkable  unions  we  see  also  a 
selection , inasmuch  as  the  most  highly  gifted  were  sons, 
many  of  the  daughters  showing  the  reversion  to  medi- 
ocrity and  balancing  matters  in  the  outside  families,  into 
which  they  married,  most  of  whom,  if  they  left  descend- 
ants at  all,  left  only  such  as  never  rose  above  obscurity. 

There  were,  however,  among  the  other  twenty-two 
grandchildren  of  William  the  Silent,  three  who  were  ex- 
ceptionally distinguished,  one  of  whom,  Turenne  (9), 
ranks  almost  among  the  highest.  The  origin  of  the 


Nassau-Orange 


89 


genius  of  William  the  Silent  is  not  quite  clear,  since 
none  of  his  ancestry  in  several  degrees  of  remoteness  were 
worthy  of  being  called  great,  although  they  were  of  ster- 
ling worth  and  above  mediocrity.  So  William  the 
Silent  himself  cannot  be  taken  as  an  instance  of  heredity, 
though  all  his  descendants  can. 

In  order  to  analyze  the  branch  of  Orange  by  another 
method,  the  following  list  of  all  the  children  and  grand- 
children of  William  the  Silent  has  been  prepared.  We 
can  then  see  the  proportionate  amount  of  brilliant  char- 
acters in  the  first  two  generations  of  his  descendants. 
Thosejn  grades’  (8),  (9),  or  (10)  are  marked  with  an  aste- 
risk. To  be  in  ranks  (9)  and  (10),  the  persons  must  re- 
ceive high  praise  in  Lippincott’s  Biographical  Dictionary. 
Those  in  (8)  may  not  always  appear  in  Lippincott’s,  but 
must  at  least  receive  adjectives  by  other  authorities 
which  amount  to  exceptional  praise. 

Descendants  of  William  the  Silent[2'o8] 

CHILDREN 

a.  Children  by  Anne,  daughter  of  Maximilian,  Count  of  Buren: 

1.  Philip  William^287]. 

2.  Mary!268]. 

b.  Children  by  Anne,  daughter  of  Maurice,  Elector  of  Saxony; 

*3.  Maurice  of  Nassau!269!  (9),  “one  of  the  greatest  captains 

of  modem  times.” 

4.  Emily  t270!  = Emanuel  of  Portugal. 

c.  Children  of  Charlotte,  daughter  of  Lewis,  Duke  of  Mont- 

pensier : 

5.  Louisa  Juliana!271!  = Palatine. 

6.  Isabella!272!  = de  Bouillon. 

7.  Catherine!273!  = Hanau. 

* In  grades  (8),  (9),  or  (10)  for  intellect. 


9o 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


8.  Flandria!274!,  a nun. 

9.  Charlotte!275!  = de  la  Tremoille. 

10.  Amelia!276!  = Palatine  Zweibriick. 

d.  Child  by  Louise,  daughter  of  the  great  Admiral  Coligny. 

*11.  Frederick  Henry!277!  (8),  celebrated  Stadtholder. 

GRANDC  HILDREN 

a.  Children  of  Maurice  of  Nassau  (illegitimate): 

1.  William,  Lord  of  Leek,  Vice-Admiral  of  Holland. 

2.  Lewis,  Lord  of  Leek,  Beverwyk,  and  Odyck,  a general. 

b.  Children  of  Amelia  of  Portugal: 

3.  Mary  Belgica. 

4.  Emanuel  Felix  of  Portugal. 

5.  Amelia. 

6.  Anne. 

7.  Juliana  Catherine. 

8.  Mauritia  Eleonora. 

9.  Louis  of  Portugal. 

c.  Children  of  Louisa  Juliana: 

10.  Frederick  V,  Elector  Palatine. 

11.  Elizabeth  = Brandenburg. 

12.  Louisa  Juliana  = Palatine. 

13.  Lewis  Philip  = Palatine-Simmern. 

d.  Children  of  Isabella,  Duchess  de  Bouillon  : 

14.  Frederick  Maurice,  Lord  of  Sedan. 

*15.  Turenne  (9),  celebrated  general. 

16.  Mary  = Henry,  Duke  Tuars. 

17.  Juliana  Catherine  = Francis  Count  Roye. 

18.  Elizabeth  = Marquis  Duras. 

19.  Henrica  Catherine  = Goyau  de  la  Moussaye. 

e.  Children  of  Catherine  of  Hanau: 

*20.  Amelia  Elizabeth  (9)  = Hesse  Cassel. 

21.  Philip  Maurice,  Count  of  Hanau. 

22.  Catherine  Juliana. 

23 . Henry  Lewis. 

24.  James  John. 

* In  grades  (8),  (9),  or  (10)  for  intellect. 


Nassau-Orange 


91 


f.  Children  of  Charlotte  de  la  Tremouille: 

25.  Henry,  Duke  Thonan,  Count  Laval. 

*26.  Charlotte  Countess  Derby  (9),  a skillful  commander,  and 
was  “the  last  person  in  the  three  kingdoms  who  sub- 
mitted to  the  parliament.” 

g.  Children  of  Amelia  = Palatine-Zweibriick: 

27.  Frederick  Lewis,  Count  Palatine-Landsberg. 

h.  Children  of  Frederick  Henry: 

*28.  William  II,  Prince  of  Orange!278!  (8),  a youth  of  great 
promise. 

29.  Louisa!279!. 

30.  Albertina!280!. 

31.  Henrietta!281!. 

32.  Mary!282!. 

Among  the  twelve  children  there  were  two  in  a grade  as 
high  as  (8).  We  count  four  distinguished  grandchildren, 
but  only  four  out  of  thirty-two,  so  we  see  a greater  pro- 
portionate amount  near  William  the  Silent  himself;  and 
the  greatest  of  the  grandchildren,  Turenne,  occurs  where 
he  would  most  probably  fall.  He  had  a brilliant  backing 
on  both  sides,  since  his  father  was  also  “a  distinguished 
general.” 

Summary  of  Orange 

The  house  of  Orange  has  often  been  pointed  out  by 
those  who  wish  to  give  examples  of  the  inheritance  of 
genius.  As  before  stated,  the  bare  existence  of  several 
generations  of  great  men  does  not  necessarily  argue  in 
favor  of  heredity.  Two  other  conditions  must  be  looked 
into.  First:  Were  there  illustrious  ancestors  on  the  ma- 
ternal side  tending  to  maintain  what  was  already  present  ? 
Second:  Were  there  many  other  children  who  were  medi- 
ocre, so  that  the  average  of  all  is  not  too  high?  Both 
these  conditions  were  true  in  the  house  of  Orange,  there- 

* In  grades  (8),  (9),  or  (10)  for  intellect. 


92 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


fore  we  may  say  that  a closer  analysis  of  the  family 
proves  that  the  theory  of  heredity  is  satisfied.  Through- 
out the  family,  the  moral  tone  remained  high;  and  it  must 
be  remembered  that  we  are  dealing  with  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries,  when  manners  were  rough, 
and  standards  low.  To  condone  those  who  fell  short  in 
moral  control  by  an  easy  reference  to  the  period  in  which 
they  lived,  is  a very  common  habit  with  historians,  but 
the  manners  of  the  age  did  not  produce  one  depraved 
prince  of  Orange,  and  the  daughters  of  the  house  were 
noted  for  their  many  virtues.  It  corresponds  through- 
out either  with  the  education,  or  with  the  blood,  as  no 
bad  characters  were  introduced,  except  Anne,  second  wife 
of  William  the  Silent.  She  was  violent,  dissolute,  and 
finally  insane,  but  the  latter  descendants  were  not  from 
her.  She  had  but  two  children  who  reached  maturity,  and 
no  legitimate  grandchildren  in  the  house  of  Orange.  Ex- 
cept that  her  daughter  Emily  and  her  son  Maurice  were 
extremely  headstrong,  her  children  appear  to  have  es- 
caped any  influence  from  her. 

Before  passing  on  to  the  younger  branch  of  Nassau- 
Dietz,  let  us  pause  to  consider  the  relation  of  certain 
germ-cells  to  the  whole  history  of  Holland.  The  national 
independence  of  the  Dutch  was  brought  about  very 
largely  by  the  personal  efforts  of  the  four  princes  of 
Orange,  William  the  Silent,  Maurice,  Frederick  Henry, 
and  William  III.  Other  causes  undoubtedly  played 
their  share,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  without  these  men,  Hol- 
land could  have  freed  herself  from  the  tyranny  of  Spain 
and  the  greed  of  France.  The  talents  of  William  the 
Silent  were  undoubtedly  natural,  and  due  to  what  we 
must  call  a sport  variation.  But  it  is,  perhaps,  not  too 


Nassau-Orange 


93 


much  to  say  that  the  United  Netherlands  could  not  have 
endured,  had  William  the  Silent  not  married  Anne  of 
Saxony,  and  Louisa  of  Coligny,  or  the  daughters  of  ex- 
tremely able  ancestors.  From  these  chance  unions  sprang 
the  other  leaders,  Maurice,  Henry,  William  II,  and 
William  III,  so  that  the  people  for  several  generations 
did  not  lack  guiding  spirits.  At  this  period,  Portugal 
and  Spain  were  declining,  and  Holland  was  rapidly  swal- 
lowing up  their  trade  and  prestige.  It  is  shown  in  the 
chapter  dealing  with  the  royal  families  of  the  latter  coun- 
tries that  their  decline  was  paralleled  by  the  contempora- 
neous existence  of  weak  rulers.  These  weak  kings  of  the 
peninsula  could  not  have  been  the  product  of  the  times, 
since  their  chance  pedigrees  (made  up  from  various  coun- 
tries of  Europe)  were  weak  and  called  for  such  characters. 

The  growth  of  Holland  over  the  southerners  was 
greatly  favored  by  this  disintegration  in  the  strength  of 
the  peninsular  rulers.  Spain  and  Portugal,  especially  in 
the  far  East  and  on  the  high  seas,  were  soon  completely 
outstripped  by  the  Dutch.  For  this  reason,  perhaps,  the 
key  to  this  whole  great  change  in  European  history  is  to 
be  found  in  the  formation  of  germ-cells  as  determined  by 
these  little  pedigrees,  for  at  this  period  Holland  had  a 
remarkably  good  pedigree,  while  Spain  and  Portugal  had 
poor  ones.  (It  is  always  to  be  remembered  that  I use 
the  word  “ pedigree,”  to  mean  a complete  exposition  of  all 
ancestors,  to  three  or  four  ascending  generations,  on  the 
male  and  female  sides  alike.) 

It  is  true  that  Holland  continues  to  remain  a prosperous 
and  progressive  nation  and  in  spite  of  a mediocre  pedi- 
gree for  her  rulers,  but  this  is  also  probably  a question 
of  blood.  The  Dutch  are  one  of  the  Teutonic  group. 


94 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


All  the  peoples  of  Europe  belonging  to  this  race  are  rela- 
tively prosperous,  while  those  in  the  south  of  Europe  are 
not.  This  whole  question  of  the  importance  of  blood  in 
history,  and  the  relative  importance  of  sovereigns  in  dif- 
ferent periods,  needs  much  further  quantitative  study. 

B.  Younger  Branch  of  Nassau-Dietz 

[284]  — [321] 

This  other  branch  of  the  house  of  Nassau  from  which 
the  present  ruling  family  of  Holland  is  descended  may 
be  well  compared  with  that  of  Orange,  since  for  a num- 
ber of  years  they  lived  and  fought  side  by  side  in  their 
struggles  for  liberty,  and,  subsequent  to  their  divergence, 
took  their  blood  largely  from  the  same  general  sources 
that  produced  the  geniuses  already  discussed.  Although 
we  find  the  brilliant  branch  of  the  family  very  largely 
represented  in  the  pedigree  as  more  remote  ancestors, 
there  was  no  such  selection  as  would  require  heredity  to 
place  the  crown  of  genius  on  the  heads  of  any  of  the 
direct  descendants.  This,  together  with  the  fact  that 
none  of  the  princes  had  large  families  of  children,  seems 
to  give  a sufficient  explanation  why  no  great  abilities 
subsequently  appeared  in  this  branch. 

The  following  is  a list  of  the  descendants  in  the  direct 
line,  their  maternal  pedigree  having  been  looked  up  in 
each  case,  complete  to  all  great-grandparents, x and  the 
distinguished  ancestors  are  noted. 

Children  of  John  of  Orange  t259!  (no  distinguished  maternal 
ancestors) : 

(7)  (?)  William  Lewist284!,  Stadtholder  of  Friesland,  b.  1560, 
d.  1620. 

(6)  (?)  John  lit285].  Count  of  Siegen. 

(6)  (?)  George[286l,  Count  of  Dillenburg. 


Nassau-Dietz 


95 


“Obscure,”  Elizabeth!387!  = Nassau-Saarbruck. 

“Obscure,”  Julius!288!,  b.  1565,  d.  1630. 

“ Obscure,”  Mary!289!  = Nassau-Wiesbaden. 

“Obscure,”  Matilda!290!  = William,  Count  of  Mansfeld. 

(5)  (5)  Ernest  Casimir!391],  b.  1573,  d.  1632. 

“Obscure,”  Amelia!292! = Solms-Greifenstein. 

“Obscure,”  John  Lewis!293],  of  Hadamar,  “ obscure.” 
“Obscure,”  Johanna!394!  = Bentheim. 

“Obscure,”  Anne!295!  = Isenburg. 

“ Obscure,”  Magdalene!298!  = Erbach. 

“Obscure,”  Anne  Amelia!297]  = Isenburg. 

Children  of  Ernest  Casimir!391]  (no  distinguished  maternal  an- 
cestors) : 

(5)  (?)  William  Frederick!298!,  Count  of  Nassau-Dietz,  b.  1652, 
d.  1664. 

Children  of  William  Frederick!298!.  (Had  (8)  Frederick  Henry!277! 
as  maternal  grandparent  and  (10)  William  the  Silent!358!  as  great- 
grandparent)  : 

(5)  (?)  Henry  Casimir!399!,  Prince  of  Nassau-Dietz,  b.  1657, 

d.  1696. 

“Obscure,”  Amelia!300!,=  Saxe-Eisnach. 

Children  of  Henry  Casimir!299!.  (Had  (8)  Frederick  Henry!277! 
as  great-grandparent,  otherwise  no  distinguished  ancestors) : 
“Obscure,”  Henrietta!301!,  b.  1686,  d.  1754. 

(6)  (7)  John  William  (Friso)!302!. 

“ Obscure,”  Maria !303!. 

“ Obscure,”  Sophia  Hedwig!304!. 

“ Obscure,”  Isabella!305!. 

“Obscure,”  Johanna!306!. 

“ Obscure,”  Louisa!307!. 

“ Obscure,”  Henrietta!308!. 

Children  of  John  William  (Friso)!302!.  (Had  three  distinguished 
great-grandparents,  (8)  Frederick  Henry!277!  twice,  and  (9)  Amelia 
of  Hesse): 

“ Obscure,”  Charlotte  Amelia!309!  = Baden-Durlach. 

(4)  (8)  William  IV!310!,  Nassau-Dietz. 


96 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Children  of  William  IV!310!.  (Had  (8)  Caroline  of  England  as  a 
grandmother,  ancestry  otherwise  mediocre) : 

“ Obscure,”  Caroline  = Nassau-Weilburg. 

(3)  (4)  William  V!312!,  Prince  of  Nassau,  b.  1748,  d.  1806.  In- 
capable and  weak. 

Children  of  William  \7!312!.  (Had  Frederick  the  Great  as  great- 
uncle,  and  of  course  other  brilliant  Hohenzollern  relatives.  Their 
mother  was  Wilhelmina!239!) : 

“Obscure,”  Frederica  Louisa!313!  = Brunswick. 

(7)  (5)  William  I!314!,  King  of  the  Netherlands,  b.  1772,  d. 

1843.  Arbitrary  ruler  of  considerable  ability.  Much 
praised  by  some  and  blamed  by  others. 

(8)  (9)  Frederick^315!,  b.  1774,  d.  1799.  A prince  of  brilliant 

promise  and  high  virtues,  who  met  an  early  death  occa- 
sioned by  a malignant  fever,  caught  in  consequence 
of  visits  to  the  sick  soldiers,  in  the  hospitals  of  Venice. 

Children  of  William  I!314!.  (Maternal  ancestry!245!,  etc.,  mediocre) : 

(7)  (8)  William  II!316!. 

(7)  (8)  Frederick  William  Charles!317!.  Excellent  man  and 
soldier. 

“ Obscure,”  Mary!318!  = Albert  of  Prussia. 

Children  of  William  III316!.  (Maternal  ancestry  mediocre,  ex- 
cept Catherine  II,  of  Russia,  as  a great-grandparent)  : 

William  III!319!.  Of  little  importance. 

“ Obscure,”  Henry!320!,  Prince  of  the  Netherlands. 

“ Obscure,”  Sophia!321!  = Saxe-Weimar. 

Reviewing  the  list:  In  the  first  two  generations  we  find 
what  we  might  well  expect,  since  John  of  Orange!259!,  a 
brother  of  William  the  Silent,  was,  although  an  excel- 
lent man,  in  no  way  a genius.  In  the  third  generation 
we  might  not  be  surprised  to  see  the  famous  qualities  of 
the  house  of  Orange  reappearing,  and  heredity  would 
demand  it,  if,  to  William  Frederick[298],  a large  number  of 


Nassau-Dietz 


97 


children  had  been  born;  but  as  there  were  only  two, 
these  may  have  taken  after  their  parents,  who  were 
“mediocre.”  The  second  generation  after  this  (children 
of  John  William  Friso)  is  similar,  so  there  seems  to  be 
nothing  in  the  history  of  this  house  to  speak  against 
heredity.  The  moral  tone  remained  good  throughout, 
and,  although  probably  explicable  on  grounds  of  environ- 
ment, is  also  in  line  with  heredity.  This  is  another  ex- 
ample of  a royal  house  that  did  not  degenerate  through 
the  assumption  of  rank  and  power. 

The  grades  in  this  chapter  are  based  on  all  the  combined  and  aver- 
aged opinions  of  the  following:  Biographie  Universelle;  Lippincott’s;  All- 
gemeine  deutsche  Biog.;  F.  Harrison,  “ William  the  Silent  R.  Putnam, 
“ William  the  Silent  Arch.  Correspond.  d’Orange,  2d  ser.  vol.  iv;  Prescott; 
Motley  ; C.  M.  Davies  ; L.  A.  Maurier;  A.  Young.  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


Montmorency,  Conde 
House  of  Montmorency 

[322]— [334] 

The  family  of  Nassau-Orange  perpetuated  itself  by 
aid  of  the  house  of  Coligny  ; and  since  the  Colignys, 
Condes,  and  Montmorencys  intermarried  freely,  these 
three  families  may  be  considered  next  and  treated  as  one 
group. 

The  pages  of  Betham’s  “Genealogy  of  the  Sovereigns 
of  the  World”  (London,  1795)  contain  from  Eberhard 
Montmorency,  contemporary  with  Hugh  Capet,  to  Anne, 
Duke  of  Montmorency,  the  great  Constable  of  France 
(1493-1567),  107  names,  covering  a period  of  eighteen 
generations.  During  the  latter  sixteen  of  these  genera- 
tions, the  family  held  exceedingly  high  social  position,  and 
were  lords  of  Montmorency,  Laval,  Montfort,  etc.  There 
were,  among  this  107,  a considerable  number  of  persons 
of  local  influence,  constables  and  marshals  of  France, 
but  the  names  of  two  alone  of  this  large  group,  the  prod- 
uct of  eighteen  generations,  have  come  down  to  us  as 
distinguished  historical  characters. 

These  are  Mathew  I,  constable,  died  in  1151,  and 
Mathew  II,  called  “The  Great,”  died  1230.  They  were 
grandfather  and  grandson.  The  next  great  Montmo- 
rency was  Anne[322],  Constable  of  France  (1493-1567)  (8). 
“He  was  a brave  but  ferocious  warrior,  was  totally  illit- 

98 


Montmorency 


99 


erate,  and  yet  through  his  natural  talent  and  the  experi- 
ence of  a long  life,  he  was  an  able  statesman  and  coun- 
selor.” None  of  the  immediate  ancestry  of  Anne  appears 
to  have  been  famous,  as  the  two  Mathews  are  many  gen- 
erations back;  therefore,  the  inherited  talents  of  Anne 
must  be  considered  a new  variation. 

Now  comes  another  little  region  of  great  names:  Anne’s 
second  son,  Henry  It324],  Duke  of  Montmorency,  was  a 
distinguished  legislator  (8),  being  the  only  one  of  seven 
mature  children  to  reach  high  fame;  the  general  average 
of  the  “fraternity”  shows  the  reversion  to  the  mean. 

Henry  II[331J,  the  representative  of  the  next  generation, 
was  rather  more  distinguished  than  his  father.  He  was 
the  only  son  to  reach  maturity.  His  sister,  Charlotte[332], 
who  married  Henry  II,  Prince  of  Conde,  and  was  the 
mother  of  the  Great  Conde  (io),  has  remained  famous 
all  these  years,  but  rather  for  her  extreme  beauty  and 
strength  of  character  than  for  purely  intellectual  quali- 
ties. There  were  two  other  sisters  not  distinguished. 
Henry  left  no  children,  so  the  male  line  ends  here.  (See 
chart,  p.  74.) 

Not  only  is  this  house,  as  is  well  known,  an  instance  of 
heredity,  but  its  closer  analysis  strengthens  even  more  this 
view,  and  the  six  most  famous  ones  fall  in  two  little 
groups  far  removed  from  each  other;  and  comparing  the 
percentages  of  genuises  with  the  size  of  the  family,  we 
see  that  it  does  not  prove  too  much.  The  first  eighteen 
generations  show  a perfectly  natural  result  from  the  in- 
fluences of  heredity.  The  last  three  generations,  giving 
four  big  names  among  twelve,  are  also  in  line  with  the 
expected,  since  both  Anne  and  his  most  distinguished 
son,  Henry,  had  large  families,  these  eminent  persons 


IOO 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


being  a select  few  out  of  many.  It  will  be  seen  later 
that  the  great  descendants  of  the  Montmorencys,  who 
bore  the  name  of  Conde,  traced  their  lineage  from  the 
great  names  among  the  Montmorencys,  not  from  the 
mediocre. 


Conde 


IOI 


Conde. 

[335]— [362] 

This  high  wave  of  Montmorency  had  probably  a great 
deal  to  do  with  making  the  name  of  Conde  so  well  known, 
since  its  greatest  personages  were  the  children  of  both 
families.  The  male  line  of  Conde  is  traced  through  the 
lines  of  Marche  and  Vend om  e back  to  Robert,  Count  of 
Clermont,  Lord  of  Bourbon  (died  1317),  the  son  of  Louis 
IX,  Prince  of  France.  From  Robert  to  Louis  I,  Prince 
of  Conde  (died  1569),  includes  in  the  direct  line  forty- 
four  adult  names,  covers  a period  of  two  and  a half  cen- 
turies, and  includes  nine  generations.  During  the  first 
of  these  generations  not  a single  one,  as  Count  of  Ven- 
dome, Duke  of  Bourbon,  or  the  possessor  of  any  other 
high  title,  ever  distinguished  himself  sufficiently  to  be 
even  mentioned  by  “Lippincott’s  Dictionary.”  During 
all  this  time  one  also  notices  no  illustrious  names  on 
the  maternal  side,  so  this  is  all  to  be  expected. 

Now  in  the  ninth  generation  appears  Louis[335],  the 
first  distinguished  Conde,  the  eighth  of  ten  mature  broth- 
ers and  sisters.  His  oldest  brother,  Anthony  of  Bour- 
bon[371],  King  of  Navarre,  is  famous,  but  ranks  far  from 
the  great.  He  was  a weak  and  irresolute  prince  who 
died  in  1562,  “detested  by  the  Protestants  whom  he  had 
deserted,  and  little  regretted  by  the  Catholics.”  * The 
second  brother,  Charles,  was  one  of  the  chiefs  of  the 
Catholic  league,  and  receives  a few  lines  in  “Lippincott.” 
The  other  children  were  not  heard  from. 

It  does  not  appear  clear  where  Louis’s  talents  arose, 
since  none  of  his  immediate  ancestors  were  remarkable, 
nor  was  his  marriage  calculated  to  perpetuate  any  great- 

* Rose,  “Biographical  Dictionary.” 


(8)  (6)  Henry  I [33«], 

Distinguished  leader  of 
the  Huguenots, 
m.  Charlotte  de  la 
Tr^mouille. 


Eleanor  [340]. 
“ Obscure.” 


Conde. 

(8)  (6)  I.ouis  I P^J. 
b.  1530. 

Celebrated  general. 
Impetuous  nature. 


Francis  [387].  Charles  [338].  de  Soissons  [339]. 

“ Obscure.”  “ Obscure.”  “ Obscure.” 


I 

(7)  (5)  Henry  II  [3*i]. 

Ambitious  and  successful, 
m.  Charlotte  de  Montmorency, 
dau.  of  Henry  I [324].  (Stock 
contained  much  genius.  See  p. 
74-)  , 


(ro)  (4)  Anne  [3«],  (io)  (4)  Louis  II  [M3].  (4)  (5)  AmaiJd  [»“]. 

Duchess  of  Longueville.  The  “ Great  Conde.”  Prince  of  Conty. 

Celebrated  for  her  beauty,  Celebrated  and  brilliant  A weak  and  insignificant 

tact,  and  diversified  genius.  general.  person. 

m.  Clemence  de  Maille  de 
Brez£.  (Stock  contained 
genius,  degeneracy,  and 
insanity.)  I 


I (7)  (3)  Henry  Julius  t345]. 

X Distinguished  soldier,  but  was  heartless, 
avaricious,  and  became  insane, 
m.  Anne  of  Palatine.  (Stock  mediocre 
or  “ obscure.”)  I 


Therese  [346]. 
“ Obscure.” 
m.  [3G4]  Conty. 


(5)  (5)  Louis  III  [347]. 

Of  little  fame, 
m.  Louise  (bizarre 
and  debauched).  A 
nat.  dau.  of  Louis 
XIV[379]  of  France. 
(Stock  bad.  See 
p.  114.)  1 


(8)  (6)  Louise  [348]. 

Duchess  of  Maine. 
Last  brilliant  Conde. 
Celebrated  as  a 
patroness  of  literature 
and  art. 


Marie  [349]. 
“ Obscure.” 


(4)  (3)  Marie  [350]. 
X An  abbess. 
Considered 
cruel. 


(5)  (3)  Louise  [352].  Alaria  t354]. 

X Bad  in  many  “ Obscure.” 
ways. 

m.  [36ti]  Conty. 


(4)  (3)  Henrietta  [36(5].  de  Clerment  [358]. 

X An  abbess.  “Obscure.” 

Considered 
cruel. 


(3)  (2)  Louis  IV  [361].  Anne  [353]. 

X b.  1692,  d.  1740.  “ Obscure.” 

Bad  character, 
m.  Caroline  of 
Hesse-Rheinfels. 

(Stock  “obscure.”) 


I (7)  (8)  Louis  Joseph  [359]. 

Courageous  and  noble, 
m.  Charlotte  of  Rohan-Soubise. 
(Stock  “ obscure”  at  this  point.) 


(5)  (4)  Louis  Henry  Joseph  [3G0] . 

A man  of  little  character, 
m.  Marie  Louise  of  Orleans  [413]. 
(Stock  contained  both  bad  and 
good  characters.) 


I (6)  (7)  Louis  Anthony  Henry  [362].  I 
Duke  of  Enghien. 

A brave  and  noble  character. 
Executed  in  1804. 


(3)  (0  Charles  [355].  Elizabeth  [357]. 

X de  Charolais.  “Obscure.” 

Atrociously  cruel 
and  debauched. 


(7)  (8)  Louise  [361]. 

A nun. 

Strong-minded,  energetic,  and 
excellent  character  in  every  way. 


Conde 


103 


ness  he  might  have  inherited,  since  his  wife,  Eleanor, 
was  a daughter  of  Charles,  Count  of  Ponce,  a family  of 
no  distinction.  He  had  three  sons,  one  of  whom  was 
Henry  I[336],  Prince  of  Conde.  He  was  “liberal,  gracious, 
and  eloquent,  and  promised  to  be  as  great  a captain  as  his 
father.”  * Only  three  of  the  eight  other  children  reached 
maturity.  These  three  held  high  titles  and  presumably 
had  equal  opportunities,  but  left  no  great  names  behind 
them.  Now,  supposing  Henry  I to  have  inherited  all  the 
talents  of  his  father,  and  that  he  was  the  only  one  to  so 
inherit  them,  the  next  generation  would  have  just  as 
much  chance  to  receive  the  birthright  of  Conde  as  his 
own  generation  had.  There  were  but  two  children,  and 
it  is  not  asking  too  much  from  heredity  if  we  believe  that 
one  of  these  two  again  shows  the  family  strength  by  the 
same  cause.  This  one  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  his 
father  was  Henry  II[341],  of  Conde,  whose  record,  how- 
ever, was  not  so  illustrious  as  that  of  some  of  those  who 
had  gone  before. 

We  now  come  to  one  of  the  greatest  “fraternities”  in 
point  of  average  to  be  found  in  all  modern  royalty.  Here 
we  find  two  out  of  three  in  the  highest  intellectual  rank. 
Louis  II,  the  “Great  Conde  ”[343],  and  his  sister  Annet342], 
Duchess  of  Longueville,  certainly  belong  in  (10).  The 
third  was  Armand,  Prince  of  Conty,  famous,  but  not 
praised  either  for  character  or  intellect.  Can  we  account 
for  these  strictly  by  heredity  ? If  these  three  children  had 
arrived  without  any  other  influence  than  the  house  of 
Conde,  it  would  be  evidence  against  heredity,  since  be- 
fore the  fourth  generation  reversion  to  the  mean  would 
be  called  for;  but  it  certainly  is  significant  to  note  that 


* Brantome,  “Vies  des  Hommes  Illustres. 


104 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


this  most  brilliant  “fraternity”  of  all  is  also  backed  by 
about  the  most  brilliant  pedigree  of  all  royalty,  for  Henry 
II,  of  Conde,  married  Charlotte,  daughter  of  Henry  I,  of 
Montmorency.  She  was  noted  for  her  beauty,  strength 
of  character,  and  fascinating  qualities.  Henry  I was  the 
center  of  the  Montmorency  genius.  Thus  the  greatest  of 
the  Condes  occur  where  we  should  most  expect  them , just  at 
the  junction  of  the  two  great  streams.  (See  chart,  p.  74.) 

The  subsequent  history  of  Conde  is  one  of  decline.  Is 
there  any  infusion  of  bad  blood  sufficient  to  account  for 
it  aside  from  the  external  circumstances  in  which  they 
lived?  Louis  II,  the  Great  Conde,  married  Clemence,  a 
daughter  of  Urban  de  Maille  de  Breze  and  a niece  of 
Cardinal  Richelieu.  Maille  de  Breze  was  Marshal  of 
France,  so  it  would  seem  at  first  sight  as  if  here  we  might 
expect  a perpetuation  of  genius.  But  in  looking  more 
carefully  we  get  the  following  idea  of  the  character  of  the 
marshal,  which  throws  no  optimistic  light  on  the  rest  of 
the  members  of  the  family.  Maille  de  Breze  was  made 
Marshal  of  France  in  1632,  and  left  his  command  in  Hol- 
land in  anger,  saying  that  il  ri’etait  point  bete  du  compagne. 
In  1636  he  was  given  the  government  of  Anjou,  where  he 
showed  himself  “ bizarre  and  tyrannical.”  He  gave  but 
little  proof  of  military  talent.  Lenet  said  that  he  was 
under  the  possession  of  a woman  (la  Dervois),  the  widow 
of  one  of  his  valets,  ugly,  but  of  quick  and  forceful  mind, 
who  governed  his  entire  fortunes  up  to  the  last  breath  of 
his  life.  Cardinal  de  Retz  pictured  him  as  extravagant, 
but  sufficiently  to  the  taste  of  the  king  for  him  to  permit 
the  marshal’s  tirades  against  the  greatest  personages  of 
the  court*  So  much  for  the  father;  the  mother,  Nicole, 


* Biog.  Univers. 


Conde 


105 


was  insane,  and  the  daughter,  Clemence,  was  a woman 
“energique  vaillante  et  mime  cruelle .* 

The  great  Conde  had  but  one  child.  If  he  had  been 
the  father  of  several,  we  might  expect  some  to  have  been 
very  brilliant  and  perhaps  escape  the  taint.  This  one 
son  was  Henry  Julius.  Eight  lines  are  devoted  to  him  in 
“Lippincott’s,”  and  read  as  follows: 

“Conde  de  (Henri  Jules  de  Bourbon),  Prince,  the  only 
son  of  the  Great  Conde,  was  born  in  1643.  He  dis- 
tinguished himself  at  the  siege  of  Tournay  in  1665,  and 
in  1674  took  part  in  the  battle  of  Seneffe,  where  he 
is  said  to  have  saved  his  father’s  life.  Saint-Simon  gives 
a very  just  but  most  unfavorable  view  of  his  character. 
Towards  the  end  of  his  life  he  became  insane,  and  fan- 
cied himself  a dead  man.  Died  in  1709.” 

Brilliancy,  bad  character,  and  congenital  insanity  were 
then  united  with  mediocrity,  since  the  mother  of  the  next 
generation  was  from  an  undistinguished  branch  of  the 
Palatine  house,  and  the  mother’s  family,  Nevers,  is  also 
“obscure”  at  this  point. 

Of  the  four  adult  children  of  Henry  Julius,  Anne 
Louise,  Duchess  of  Maine,  alone  has  left  a fame  that  has 
come  down  to  us. 

“She  had  more  than  an  ordinary  share  of  the  pride  of 
birth  by  which  that  branch  of  the  Bourbons  was  distin- 
guished. She  was  highly  educated  and  a great  patroness 
of  literature  and  art.  Most  of  her  life  was  spent  in  her 
beautiful  mansion  at  Sceaux,  surrounded  by  men  most 
eminent  for  genius  and  learning.  It  was  she  who  first 
patronized  the  muse  of  Voltaire.”  f 

* Jacoby,  “ fe  tudes  sur  la  Selection,”  p.  414. 
f Taylor,  “Memoirs  of  Orleans,”  i,  p.  211. 


io 6 Heredity  in  Royalty 

The  intellectual  qualities  being  the  fact  most  interest- 
ing to  trace  in  the  family  of  Conde,  nothing  further  need 
be  said  save  that  the  remaining  members  showed  no 
marked  genius.  The  nine  in  the  next  generation  ex- 
hibited two  instances  of  extreme  cruelty.  These  were 
Louis  IV[351],  Prince  of  Conde,  and  his  brother  Charles, 
Count  of  Charolaist3551. 

“Bad  as  the  Duke  of  Bourbon  was,  his  brother,  the 
Count  of  Charolais,  was  infinitely  worse.  He  excited 
public  execration  by  acts  of  such  ferocious  atrocity  that 
they  seem  to  belong  to  the  worst  tyrants  of  antiquity. 
Like  all  the  nobles  who  had  been  educated  under  the 
regency,  he  had  abandoned  himself  to  the  wildest  and 
most  profligate  debauchery,  which,  however,  did  not  sat- 
isfy him  unless  it  was  accompanied  by  the  most  savage 
cruelty.  He  murdered  one  of  his  servants  whose  wife, 
fondly  attached  to  her  husband,  refused  to  receive  his 
addresses.  He  fired  nt  the  slaters  employed  on  the  tops 
of  houses,  and  when  he  brought  down  one  of  his  human 
game  he  hastened  to  gratify  himself  by  watching  his  last 
agonies.”  * 

We  notice  that  the  writer  refers  to  his  having  been 
educated  like  the  other  youths  of  the  day,  in  the  de- 
bauching school  of  the  regency,  but  does  not  make  men- 
tion of  the  fact  that  he  was  a grandson  of  the  mad  Henry 
Julius. 

“The  sisters  of  this  delectable  family  were  hardly  bet- 
ter than  the  brothers.  Two  of  them  were  abbesses  of 
monasteries,  very  rigid  and  ostentatious  in  their  devo- 
tional exercises,  but  cruel  tyrants  over  the  unfortunate 
nuns,  subject  to  their  sway.  Both  exercised  the  most 

* Taylor,  i,  p.  383. 


Conde 


107 

perverse  ingenuity  in  discovering  means  of  torturing 
these  poor  victims  of  the  cloister.”  * 

The  remaining  generations  had  but  one,  two,  and  one 
offspring  respectively.  As  Louis  IV[331fi  Prince  of  Conde, 
was  of  little  account,  and  the  remaining  pedigrees  contain 
Hesse,  Rheinfels,  Soubise,  and  Orleans  without  bringing 
intellectual  distinction,  as  far  as  I know,  there  appears 
to  be  nothing  against  heredity  in  the  closing  chapter  of 
the  house.  In  fact,  the  psycho-neurosis  appears  to  have 
been  eliminated  through  the  principle  of  regression,  and 
we  find  the  last  members  of  the  family  rather  fine  heroic 
types,  though  not,  like  their  Conde  ancestors,  capable 
of  grappling  with  difficult  conditions.  The  last  of  the 
line,  Louis  Anthony  Henry,  Duke  of  Enghien,  was 
executed  in  March,  1804,  an  act  that  is  commonly 
regarded  as  one  of  the  worst  stains  on  the  character  of 
Napoleon. 

The  chief  lesson  to  be  drawn  from  the  house  of  Conde 
is  that  there  is  no  degeneration  which  cannot  be  perfectly 
explained  by  inheritance.  A glance  back  at  the  chart 
shows  that  the  violent  and  depraved  characters  numbered 
[345],  [350]^  [351] ^ [352]^  [355]^  [356]^  occur  immediately  after  the 
introduction  of  similar  stock  on  the  maternal  side.  It 
was  not  a gradual  and  general  decline,  such  as  we 
might  expect  if  environment  has  the  influence  claimed 
for  it  by  some.  This  may  be  easily  seen  on  viewing  the 
last  three  generations  in  the  chart  (p.  102),  where  we 
see  excellent  characters  in  the  proportion  of  three  in 
four. 

In  the  following  chart  we  see  the  descendants  of  the  in- 
significant Amand,  younger  brother  of  the  Great  Conde. 


* Taylor,  op.  cit. 


io8 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Conty,  younger  branch  of  Co7ide  [S63J  [370j# 

(4)  (5)  Amand  of  Conty  [344], 

son  of  Henry  II,Cond£  [341]. 

A weak  and  insignificant  person, 
m.  (5)  (10)  Anne  Marie,  niece  of 
Cardinal  Mazarin. 


Louis  Amand  I [363].  (8)  (9)  Francis  Louis  [364]. 

Led  a disorderly  life  and  died  Brilliant  gifts  and  noble 

young.  character. 

Elected  King  of  Poland. 
m.[346]  Conde. 


Maria  Anne  [365].  Louis  Amand  [366].  Louise  [367]. 

“ Obscure.”  “ Did  not  inherit  the  brilliant  “ Obscure.” 

m.  [361]  Conde.  qualities  of  his  father.”  * 

m.  (5)  (3)  Louise  [362]  Condd. 

X (Bad  stock). 


(7)  (7)  Francis  I [368],  1717-1776.  (5)  (3)  Louise  Henrietta  [389]. 

Cruel  and  debauched  when  X Licentious, 
young.  Reformed  and  m.  Louis  Philippe  [4ir|. 

became  an  excellent  prince.  (1725-1785). 


He  married  a niece  of  Cardinal  Mazarin,  the  celebrated 
leader  of  French  politics  during  the  minority  of  Louis 
XIV.  Such  a union  of  talents  might  be  expected  to  pro- 
duce something  extraordinary,  at  least  in  a large  number 
of  children.  Both  sons  were  brilliant  and  differed  much 
in  moral  character.  The  elded383!  died  too  young  to  be 
of  much  interest.  The  younged3841  was  an  ideal  prince, 
and  is  the  last  example  in  the  branch  to  represent  the 
old  Montmorency-Conde  genius. 

There  is  just  one  unexpected  happening  in  this  group, 
and  that  is  that  none  of  the  children  in  the  next  genera- 
tion were  as  remarkable  as  we  should  expect  from  the 
intermarriage  with  Thereset348!,  of  Conde.  It  might  have 
been  that  all  three  resembled  their  mother. 

The  remaining  members  of  the  family  are  expected 
enough,  and  without  interest  except  in  explaining  the  bad 
qualities  of  Louise  Henrietta[369],  who  became  the  beauti- 


* Le  Bas,  “Diet.  Encyclopedique.” 


Conty  109 

ful  and  notorious  Duchess  of  Orleans,  mother  of  the 
debauched  Egalite. 

The  grades  for  Montmorency,  Conde,  and  Conty  are  based  on  all  the 
combined  and  averaged  opinions  of  the  following:  Rose’s  Biographical  Diet.; 
Biog.  Univers.;  Lippincott’s;  Taylor,  “Memoirs of  Orleans  J.  Cretineau- 
Joly,  “Trois  dern.  princes  Conde  “Memoires  de  Henri  due  de  Montmo- 
rency Guizot,  “ Hist,  of  France  and  Ency.  Britannica.  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  IX 


France 

A.  Bourbons  in  France. 

[371—400] 

Descended  from  an  ancestor  in  common  with  Conde 
and  Conty,  the  house  of  Bourbon  may  properly  be  con- 
sidered next.  From  Anthony,  King  of  Navarre[371],  to 
the  daughter  of  Fouis  XVI,  there  elapses  a period  of 
ten  generations  with  thirty  names.  The  son  of  the 
first  of  this  group  became  Henry  IV,  of  France,  the 
founder  of  the  Bourbon  dynasty,  the  hero  of  his  age,  and 
the  only  great  name  among  them  all.  Henry  IV  earned 
for  himself  the  title  of  “le  Grand,”  and  in  spite  of  his 
many  weaknesses  and  vices,  his  brilliancy,  eloquence,  and 
practical  genius  doubtless  entitle  him  to  this  epithet-  “His 
memory  is  cherished  by  the  French,  more  than  that  of 
any  other  of  their  kings,  and  his  character  is  regarded 
by  them  as  the  beau-ideal  of  a Frenchman,  a warrior,  a 
monarch,  and  statesman.”  * 

Although  his  father,  the  King  of  Navarre,  was  in  no 
way  a man  from  whom  we  might  expect  such  a son, 
Henry  the  Great  came  naturally  by  his  brilliant  quali- 
ties, and  is  the  center  of  a little  group  of  very  gifted  roy- 
alty, as  the  following  diagram  shows.  The  names  in 
bold  type  are  in  grades  (9)  or  (10). 

* Lippincott’s  “Biographical  Diet.” 


1 10 


HENRY  IV  \®*]. 


PHILIP  [380], 
Son  of  Louis  XIII. 


LOUIS  XIII  [m\. 


ANNE  OF  AUSTRIA  [52?], 
Queen  of  Louis  XIII. 


LOUIS  XI VP'O]. 


MARIA  THERESA  [533], 
Queen  of  Louis  XIV  of  France. 


LOUIS,  DUKE  OF  BURGUNDY  [»»]. 
Father  of  Louis  XV. 


LOUIS,  DAUPHIN  «]. 
Son  of  Louis  XIV. 


France 


1 1 1 


This  group  is  especially  interesting,  because  it  illus- 
trates what  is  so  often  the  result,  when  a strain  that  con- 
tains some  remarkable  peculiarity  is  united  with  one  that 
does  not.  Among  the  five  children  of  Henry  IV,  Henri- 
etta seems  to  have  had  the  brains  and  spirit,  while  Louis 
XIII  and  Gaston  were  unusually  weak  and  degenerate. 
In  the  next  generation,  Anne  Marie  amply  represented 
the  genius  of  her  grandfather.  She  was  Duchess  of 
Montpensier  — generally  known  as  ‘ ‘ Mademoiselle’  ’ — and 
belongs  among  the  three  or  four  famous  women  military 
leaders.  There  certainly  have  been  few  of  her  sex  gifted 

Henri  d’  Albret.  (io)  Margaret  of  Angouleme 

Queen  of  Navarre. 


Anthony  of  Bourbon.  (9)  Jeanne  d’  Albret. 

King  of  Navarre. 


(9)  Henry  IV  married  Marie  de  Medici. 

(Poor  stock.) 


Louis  XIII.  Elizabeth.  Christine.  Gaston.  (8)  Henrietta 

m.  Charles  I 
of  England. 


(10)  Anne  Marie.  Margaret.  Elizabeth. 

in  this  particular  direction.  The  spirit  and  daring  of 
“Mademoiselle”  were  indeed  remarkable,  especially  at 
the  capture  of  the  town  of  Orleans,  where  she  rendered 
important  service.  It  is  interesting  to  find  this  extraor- 
dinary woman,  the  last  of  a brilliant  group  of  geniuses, 
showing  in  full  force  the  exceptional  qualities  of  her  fore- 
bears. I have  said  the  last,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  she  were 
the  very  last  of  this  strain.  A great-grandson  of  Henry 
IV  — who  became  notorious  for  his  vices  as  well  as 
famed  for  his  mental  endowments  — the  regent  Philip 
of  Orleans,  might  have  been  a reversion,  in  part  to  this 


1 12  Heredity  in  Royalty 

group,  as  well  as  to  the  Palatine  genius  of  his  mother’s 
family. 

Louis  XIII  was  a nonentity,  as  is  well  known.  His  son, 
Louis  XIV,  “le  Grand,”  so-called,  possessed  a certain 
will  power  and  a personality  which  enabled  him  to  star 
so  successfully  in  his  part  of  playing  the  king,  but  never 
again  did  an  exceptional  Bourbon  appear.  Glancing  at  the 
chart  opposite  p.  154,  where  the  degeneracy  of  the  Span- 
ish Bourbons  is  shown,  one  can  see  how  from  Philip  V[380) 
onward,  the  French  royal  family  was  almost  continually 
in-bred  with  the  great  group  of  neuroses  belonging  origi- 
nally to  the  Spanish  house,  which  afterwards  became  its 
own  unfortunate  birthright.  The  following  is  an  analysis 
of  the  Bourbon  marriages  in  France.  They  were  all, 
with  one  exception,  unwise,  mediocre,  or  decidedly  bad. 

Henry  IV  married  Marie  de  Medici,  a passionate, 
tyrannical,  and  not  especially  gifted  woman.  She  was  the 
daughter  of  Francisco  de  Medici,  “a  suspicious  and  false 
tyrant.”  Her  mother,  Joanna,  “obscure,”  was  a grand- 
daughter of  Joanna  the  Mad,  of  Spain,  and  Philip  the 
Handsome,  a nonentity.  There  was  in  the  stock,  it  is 
true,  a grain  of  genius;  nevertheless,  this  marriage  must 
be  considered  unquestionably  bad  for  the  Bourbon  future. 

Louis  XIII[374]  married  Anne,  of  Austria,  in-bred  from 
the  same  Bourbon-Hapsburg  stock.  She  was  from  the 
worst  section  of  the  Spanish  house,  and  one  can  find  little 
to  be  desired  in  her  or  her  ancestors.  The  blood  of 
Joanna  the  Mad  is  many  times  in  her  pedigree. 

Louis  XIV  married  Maria  Theresa,  belonging  to  the 
same  stock.  She  was  a daughter  of  Philip  IV,  of  Spain, 
consequently  a granddaughter  of  the  same  Philip  III. 
Her  mother  was  a sister  of  Louis  XIII.  The  wife  of 


France 


”3 


Philip  the  Handsome  [611].  J oanna  the  Mad,  of  Spain  [508J. 
Weak.  I Insane. 


Cosimo  de  Medici.  Eleanor. 

Cruel  and  suspicious.  Bad  traits. 


(4)  (2)  Francisco  de  Medici. 
X “ Suspicious,  and  false 
tyrant.” 


(5)  (9)  Ferdinand  I [515].  (5)  (7)  Anne,  of  Hungary. 

Emperor.  Good  qualities. 

Normal.  Many 
fine  qualities. 


(5)  (5)  Joanna  [693]. 

Normal. 

Virtuous. 


(s)  (3)  Marie  de  Medici. 

X Haughty,  jealous,  of  a violent 
temper. 

m.  henry  IV,  of  France  [372]. 
(Add  also  his  pedigree.) 


(3)  (3)Louis  XIII[374]. 
X Weak,  cruel, 
melancholic. 


(6)  (5)  Elizabeth  [375].  (5)  (4)  Christina  [370]. 
Considerable  An  intriguer, 

character. 


(3)  (2)  Gaston  [377].  (8)  (4)  Henrietta[378]. 
X Despicable  Energetic, 

character.  with  passion- 

ate temper. 


Charles  V [«*].  Max  II  [583].  Mary  [619] . 

Son  of  Joanna  Brother  of  Charles  [692].  Normal, 
the  Mad.  D.  of  Styria.  Granddaughter  of  Joanna 

(See  to  right.)  the  Mad. 


(S)  (1) 

X 


Philip  II 
of  Spain  [618] . 
Despicable 
character. 


(4)  (5)  Anne  [594]. 
Normal. 


Charles  [692].  Mary  of  Bavaria. 

Duke  of  Styria.  “ Obscure.” 

Of  little  importance. 

Grandson  of  Joanna 
the  Mad. 


(2)  (6)  Philip  III  of  Spain  [526]. 
Feeble,  indolent, 
melancholic. 


Margaret  [606]. 
“ Obscure.” 


(4)  (4)  Anne,  of  Austria  [627]. 

Haughty,  vain,  and  foolish. 
Married  X (3)  (3)  Louis 
XIII  of  France  [374]. 

(Add  also  his  pedigree.) 


I I 

(7)  (4)  Louis  XIV  [379].  (3)  (5)  Philip  T380]. 

Egotistic  and  sensuous,  Duke  of  Orleans, 

but  had  certain  popular  Feeble  mind,  feminine 

qualities,  and  ability  in  characteristics, 

kingcraft. 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


114 


Philip  III  [626]  Margaret  [606]. 

of  Spain.  (See  previous  pedigree.) 

(See  previous  pedigree.)  I 


(5)  (2)  Philip  IV  [628]  of  Spain. 
X Weak,  foolish,  and 
licentious. 


(9)  (4)  Henry  IV  [372]  (5)  (3)  Marie  de 

of  France.  X Medici. 

(See  above.)  (See  above.) 


(6)  (5)  Elizabeth. 

Considerable  strength  of 
character. 


(2)  (6)  Maria  Theresa  [533]. 

“ Extremely  stupid.” 
m.  (7)  (4)  Louis  XIV,  of 
France. 

(Add  also  his  pedigree.) 


I (2)  (5)  Louis  the  Dauphin  [381J. 
Indolent  and  stupid. 


(7)  (7)  Ferd.  II  [«°3] 
of  Austria. 
Able  and  well- 
meaning,  but 
tyrannical  and 
bigoted. 

Max  I,  of  Mary  [612]. 

Bavaria.  “ Obscure.” 

“Able  ruler.” 


Ferdinand  Maria,  of  Bavaria. 
Undistinguished. 


(8)  (4)  Chas.  Eman.  I, 
of  Savoy. 
Brilliant  and 
passionate. 


Catherine. 

Dau.  of  Philip  II, 
of  Spain. 


(7)  (5)  Victor  Amadeus  I, 
of  Savoy. 

A brilliant  soldier. 
Energy  and 
wisdom. 


(9)  (4)  Henry  IV[372]  (5)  (3)  Marie  de 
of  France.  Medici. 

Brilliant,  Haughty 

eloquent,  and  jealous, 

popular.  violent. 


(5)  (4)  Christina  [37a]. 
Poor  character. 
Amounted  to  little. 


Adelaide. 

“ Obscure.” 
] 


(5)  (6)  Maria  Anne. 

Excellent  princess, 
m.  (2)  (5)  Louis  the  Dauphin  [381]. 
(Add  also  his  pedigree.) 


(6)  (8)  Louis,  Duke  of  Burgundy  [385]. 
Talented  and  virtuous. 


(2)  (4)  Philip  V [388]  of  Spain. 

Merciful  and  magnanimous, 
but  indolent  and  sensuous. 
Became  insane. 


(2)  (3)  Charles,  Duke  of  Berry  [387]. 
X Debauched  fool. 


France 


”5 

Louis  XIV  was,  therefore,  much  more  closely  related  to 
him  than  a first  cousin. 

Louist381]  the  Dauphin,  the  only  legitimate  child  of 
Louis  XIV  who  reached  maturity,  resembled  his  mother. 
His  marriage  with  Maria  Anne,  of  Bavaria,  may  be  con- 
sidered at  least  better  than  the  alliances  of  his  forefathers. 
However,  it  was  not  more  than  mediocre  except  in  the 
background. 

The  children  in  the  above  generation  have  now, 
through  inter-marriages,  the  neurotic  strain  no  less  than 
eleven  times  in  their  pedigree.  It  would  seem  that 
Philip  V,  of  Spain[388],  was  a reversion  on  this  ancestral 
type.  After  the  bloody  wars  of  the  Spanish  succession, 
the  grandson  of  Louis  XIV  came  upon  the  throne  of 
Spain,  and,  as  the  stem  from  which  so  many  latter-day 
Bourbons  sprang,  became  an  exceedingly  important  fac- 
tor in  the  biology  of  royalty.  In  him  the  ancient  psycho- 
neurosis got  a fresh  start,  to  be  handed  on,  like  the 
Hapsburg  “lip,”  as  a family  inheritance,  to  many  of 
the  unfortunate  members  of  the  royal  houses  of  Spain, 
Austria,  and  Italy. 

Louis,  Duke  of  Burgundy[385],  whose  elder  son  became 
the  next  king  of  France,  was  himself  free  from  the  taint; 
still,  his  marriage  tended  as  far  as  possible  to  maintain  the 
same  stock.  The  pedigree  now  formed  is  not  as  bad  as 
might  be,  and,  if  more  children  had  been  born,  doubtless 
some  might  at  least  have  been  better  specimens  than 
Louis  XV.  The  characteristics  of  his  mother’s  family 
are  here  given  (p.  116). 

Louis  XV  cannot  be  considered  an  instance  of  ex- 
pected inheritance,  at  least  as  far  as  moral  characteristics 
are  concerned.  His  marriage  with  Marie  Leszinski  must 


ii  6 Heredity  in  Royalty 

have  been  beneficial  to  the  Bourbon  virtues.  The  table 
(p.  1 1 7)  would  indicate  as  much.  This  may  be  con- 
trasted with  the  Bourbons  in  Spain,  the  descendants  of 
Philip  V[386i  (p.  154). 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  pedigree  of  these  six  children 
was  good,  except  that  we  find  Louis  XV  and  his  uncles. 
Only  one  of  them  fell  as  low  as  (3)  in  the  scale  of  virtues. 
There  has  been  an  attempt  in  some  quarters  to  throw  a 
most  unfavorable  light  on  the  morality  of  several  of  the 


Louis  XIII  [374]  of  Chari esl,  of  England 

France.  (Stock  poor.) 

(Stock  bad.)  i 

(4)  (8)  Charles  Eman.  II,  (5)  (2)  Joanna.  Philip[380]of  Orleans.  Henrietta. 

of  Savoy.  X Ambitious  and  Weak  and  Frivolous  and 

Good  character.  unscrupulous.  effeminate.  immoral. 

I Corrupt.  I I 


(7)  (4)  Victor  Amadeus  II,  Anne,  of  Orleans, 

of  Savoy.  Of  little  importance. 

Hot-headed,  though  l 

right-minded.  j 


Marie  Adelaide,  of  Savoy, 
b.  1685,  d.  1712. 

m.  (6)  (8)  Louis,  Duke  of  Burgundy  [38B]. 
Talented  and  virtuous. 

(Add  also  his  pedigree.) 


I (3)  (2)  Louis  XV  [388j,  King  of  France.  1 
X Debauched,  profligate. 


k 

daughters  of  Louis  XV.  Epileptique , bizarre , violente, 
incestueuse,  altiere,  cruelle,  are  some  of  the  adjectives 
applied  to  Madame  Adelaide,  by  M.  Paul  Jacoby  in  his 
book,  “Etudes  sur  la  Selection,”  a work  which  professes 
to  be  scientific,  but  which  strikes  one  as  being  more  like 
the  tirade  of  an  ultra-democrat  against  the  governing 
classes  in  general.  Jacoby  has  apparently  dwelt  upon  all 
the  worst  characters,  ignored  normal  and  excellent  ones, 
and,  moreover,  follows  Michelet,  whose  later  writings  are 
well  known  to  have  this  same  failing  and  to  be,  in  general, 


France 


”7 


(6)  (?)  Raphael  Leszinski. 

Distinguished  by  his 
personal  qualities.* 

(6)  (7)  Stanislaus  Leszinski.  Catharine  Opalinska. 

Accomplished  and  popular.  “ Obscure.’* 

Good  character. 

Very  scholarly,  but  weak 
as  a statesman.* 


(4)  (6)  Marie  Leszinski. 

Cold  temperament. 

Dull  and  pious, 
married 

(3)  (2)  Louis  XV  [388]. 

X Debauched  profligate. 
(Add  also  his  pedigree.) 


(5)  (3)  Elizabeth  [389j.  (s)(6)  Louis  [390].  (4)  (5)  Adelaide  [391].  (5)  (6)Victoria  [392]. 


X Ambitious 
intriguer. 

Of  question- 
able morality. 


The  weak 
and  indo- 
lent but 
virtuous 
dauphin. 


Religious 
and  some- 
thing of  an 
intriguer. 


1 Passed 
most  of  her 
life  at  court, 
and  was  re- 
spected for 
her  piety  and 
purity.”  t 


Sophie  f393].  Louise  [394].  I 
Character  A nun. 

normal.  Excellent 

virtues. 


7)  (3)  Augustus  the 
Strong. 

X Talented, 
licentious, 
prodigal. 

I 


Eberdine,  of 

Brandenburg. 

Not 

important. 


(8)  (9)  Joseph  I,  of 
Austria  [®191. 
Intellectual, 
amiable, 
tolerant. 


Amelia,  of 
Brunswick. 

“ Obscure.” 


(4)  (7)  Frederick  Augustus  II, 
of  Saxony. 

Mediocre,  but  good 
character. 


.1 

(4)  (6)  Marie  Josepha. 
Good, 

mediocre  princess. 


1 


(5)  (6)  Josepha  of  Saxony. 

Mediocre,  amiable,  and 
virtuous. 

married 

(5)  (6)  Louis,  the  Dauphin  f390]. 
Indolent,  but  virtuous. 
(Add  also  his  pedigree.) 


(5)  (8)  Louis  XVI  [396]. 
Intelligent  and 
well-intentioned, 
but  weak. 
Studious  tastes. 


(7) (5)  Louis  XVIII  [396]. 
Excellent  king. 
Studious  tastes. 


(3)  (5)  Charles  X [397]. 
Obstinate  and 
bigoted. 

Not  studious  in 
his  tastes. 


(5)  (9)  Adelaide  [398]. 
A beautiful 
character. 
Devoted  to 
religion  and 
charities. 


(7)  (9)  Elizabeth  [399]. 
A heroine. 

Her  nature  was 
especially 
devoted  and 
noble. 

Studious  tastes 


* Ency.  Brit.,  9th  ed. 
t Biog.  Univers. 


1 1 8 Heredity  in  Royalty 

unreliable.  Such  difficulties  arising  from  extreme  differ- 
ences of  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  are  rarely 
met  with.  In  this  case,  it  is  much  better  to  follow  the 
conservative  view,  and  consider  only  the  eldest  daughter 
of  Louis  XV  as  having  a nature  essentially  bad.  Even 
she  should  not  go  in  the  worst  grades.  We  all  remember 
accounts  of  the  excellent  virtues  and  good  intentions  of 
Louis  XVI,  and  the  heroism  of  his  sister  Elizabeth,  dur- 
ing the  ordeal  of  the  Revolution,  and,  in  fact,  the  general 
tone  of  the  later  Bourbons  of  France  was  far  from  bad. 
Indeed,  they  were  not  characteristically  Bourbon.  It 
was  the  other  branches  of  the  house,  especially  in  Spain 
and  Italy,  that  made  the  name  a synonym  for  tyranny, 
bigotry,  and  licentiousness.  Here  in  France,  we  have 
already  seen  one  “outside  marriage”  with  excellent 
stock.  The  last  given  here  is  that  of  Louis  the  Dau- 
phin[390],  (p.  1 1 7),  where  the  maternal  stock  may  be  seen 
to  be  good,  though  mediocre. 

Summary  of  the  Bourbons , Psychological  Aspects  * 

Reviewing  the  characteristics  of  the  Bourbons  in  France, 
we  find  two  main  facts  to  be  accounted  for:  First,  the 
high  talent  centering  around  Henry  IV ; and  second,  the 
degeneracy  seen  in  so  many  members  of  the  family.  The 
first  is  perfectly  accounted  for  by  heredity,  Henry  re- 
ceiving his  genius  from  his  mother  and  grandmother, 
and  transmitting  it  to  one  daughter  and  one  granddaugh- 
ter. The  reader  must  remember  how  rare  the  (9)  and 
(10)  grades  are,  yet  here  together  are  four  of  these  elect, 
and  also  one  in  (8).  The  others  about  them  are  mediocre 


* Physiognomy  discussed  under  Hapsburgs  in  Austria. 


LOUIS  AT[388]. 


STANISLAUS  LESZINSKI,  KING  OF  POLAND, 
b.  1677,  d.  1766.  Father-in-law  of  Louis  XV . 


ELIZABETH  LOUISE,  DUCHESS  OF  PARMA  L389] 
Daughter  of  Louis  XV. 


LOUIS,  DAUPHIN [39° 
Son  of  Louis  XV. 


LOUIS  A'lz/L395]. 


CHARLES  A"  [3a7]. 


MARIE  THERESA  [««], 
Daughter  of  Louis  XVI. 


LOUIS  XVIII  p*]. 


France 


119 

or  lower  still.  Stirring  events  and  opportunities  came 
also  to  them.  Why  did  they  fall  short?  The  answer  is 
that  these  “ took  after  ” the  mediocre  and  not  the  gifted 
ancestors. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  second  fact,  the  moral  condi- 
tions. Although  the  French  Bourbons  have  left  a bad 
name,  if  we  analyze  them  as  carefully  as  possible,  and 
take  the  whole  thirty  into  consideration,  we  find  only 
five  in  a grade  as  low  as  (3).  It  is  true  that  some  were 
particularly  odious,  and  we  do  not  find  many  altruists 
among  them ; but,  taking  them  as  a whole,  they  were  not 
the  worst  of  royal  lords  and  dames. 

The  pedigrees  show  that  these  exceptionally  depraved 
five  are  well  accounted  for,  and  what  is  more  striking,  is 
that  closely  associated  with  them,  are  many  in  the  middle 
or  higher  grades  — a fact  more  readily  explained  by  hered- 
ity than  surroundings.  The  variations  in  the  progeny  are 
here,  as  elsewhere,  reduplicated  by  variations  in  the 
ancestry. 

B.  Bourbon , Branch  of  Orleans 

[401]  —[423] 

The  younger  branch  of  the  house  of  Bourbon,  called 
to  the  throne  in  the  year  1830,  is  descended  from  Philip 
of  Orleans,  a younger  brother  of  Louis  XIV. 

The  son  of  this  Philip  became  regent  of  France  dur- 
ing the  minority  of  Louis  XV,  and  is  a well-known  his- 
torical character  for  his  eccentricities,  his  vices,  and  his 
brilliancy. 

The  pedigree  of  this  man  of  such  exaggerated  traits  is 
not  out  of  keeping  with  the  man  himself.  He  had  the 
Bourbon  eccentricities  on  his  father’s  side,  on  his  mother’s 


120 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


the  brilliancy  of  the  house  of  Palatine,  e.g.,  Sophia, 
Elizabeth,  and  Rupert,  the  famous  cavalier. 

We  find  abnormalities  of  some  kind  in  five  of  the  six 
children  of  the  Regent.  Three  of  the  daughters  were 
extremely  dissolute.  One  was  sweet-tempered  and  nor- 
mal. This  might  be  explained  by  the  circumstances  by 
which  they  were  surrounded,  the  youngest  daughter 
having  been  under  better  influences  ; or  might  be  merely 
the  variations  in  the  pedigree,  Philippine  being  the  only 
child  to  resemble  her  mother. 

The  remaining  generations  contain  little  other  than 
mediocrity,  which  is  to  be  expected  from  a study  of  the 
pedigrees.  Louis[408],  the  only  son,  married  a princess  of 
Baden  of  undistinguished  stock.  His  only  son,  Louis 
Philippe[411],  a mediocrity  (4)  (4),  married  Louise  Hen- 
rietta[390],  a daughter  of  Louis  Amand  II,  of  Conty.  She 
was  a woman  of  no  especial  gifts,  and  very  bad  morals. 
(Her  character  is  accounted  for  in  the  section  Conty,  the 
house  of  her  birth.) 

Their  only  son,  Louis  Philippe,  who  is  generally  known 
as  “Egalite,”  was  a weak  and  debauched  specimen.  His 
marriage,  however,  may  be  considered  fairly  good,  in  so 
far  as  it  introduced  an  excellent  mother  and  grandfather. 

The  characteristics  of  the  other  members  of  the  family 
are  to  be  seen  on  p.  122. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  last  two  generations  in  the 
family  of  Orleans  are  uniformly  good,  even  though  this  is 
not  to  be  expected  from  the  influences  of  heredity  as  we 
have  seen  them  act  in  other  instances.  The  education 
of  these  princes  was  exceptional,  and  it  may  be  due  to 
this  that  all  turned  out  so  well.  The  bad  stock  on  the 
maternal  side,  that  produced  so  many  degenerates  in  the 


Literary 

tastes. 


Orleans 


I 2 1 


1 n O “ 

ft. 

< 3 

n 3 CD, — , 

o,  ^ ^ «. 

• ' •<  3 J 

*<  ‘r- 


'*2  2 1—1  cl.  f— i 

'o  f)  o 

3 3 dO£. 


3 3 x 

3 O.S 

3 © 


* cr 


£LB 


~n>  iu* 
2 3 O 


2. 2- cor 

;;  E.--0 

C - QJ  F. 


xg 

&8  £ COM 


D 05M 

S s 3t 

§ 

r-  A-’F 

s = 

3 n 


OM 


PJ 

BJ  ^ 


II  |s  o 
■gSS'o-S. 

2 § =■  s. ■ “ _ 
S'g"  o'X 


3P^r 

JLg  it  2 

HI  fP.IM  c 
3 ~ ?t"  C/i 


« £L 


122 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


history  of  Spain,  here  seems  to  have  been  without  effect. 
One  or  two  of  the  children  of  King  Louis  Philippe  might 
have  been  expected  to  show  a reversion,  but  none  did. 

The  house  of  Orleans  gives  us,  then,  almost  everything 
to  be  expected,  as  far  as  mental  inheritance  is  concerned. 


Orleans.  Conty. 

(Bad  stock.)  (Bad  stock.) 

(4)  (4)  Louis  Philippe  [411].  (5) (3)  Louise  Henrietta. 

Mediocre  qualities.  X Immoralities. 


(4)  (3)  Louis  Philippe,  £galitd  [412]. 
X Weak  and  debauched. 


Bourbon.  Modena. 

(Bad  stock.)  (Bad  stock.) 

1 .1 
Louis  Jean  de  Penthievre.  Marie  Theresa. 

Liberal  and  benevolent.  “ Obscure.” 


(5)  (8)  Adelaide. 

Quiet,  amiable. 
Excellent  traits. 


I (6)  (5)  Louis  Philippe  (king)  [414].  (6)  (8)  Anthony  (Montpensier)  [416].  Adelaide  [4ltt].  I 

Honorable,  though  selfish  Excellent  character.  “Obscure.” 

and  egotistical. 


See  above. 


Spanish. 
Bourbon. 
(Bad  stock.) 

(2)  (3)  Ferdinand  IV  [540] 
X of  Naples. 

“ Puerile.” 


Austria. 
(Good  stock.) 


(7)  (3)  Mane  Caroline  [88B]. 
X Great  ambition, 
cruelty,  and  energy. 


(6)  (5)  Louis  Philippe  [414].  = Marie  Amelia  [c03]. 

(See  above.)  Amiable,  estimable, 

“ holy  and  pure.” 


I (6)  (6)  Ferdinand  [417].  Louise  [418].  (6)  (6)  Louis  (Nemours)  [419].  Clementine  [420]. 

Good  all-round  Normal,  Simple,  unaffected,  Little  mentioned, 

character.  virtuous.  well-meaning, 

reserved.  A good 
soldier. 


(7)  (6)  Francis  [421]. 

( Joinville.) 
Excellent 
character. 
Artistic  tastes. 


(7)  (7)  Henry  (Aumale)[422]. 
Good  soldier, 
statesman,  author, 
and  artist. 


(6)  (7)  Anthony  [423]. 
(Montpensier.) 
Polite,  charitable, 
intelligent. 


All  except  the  Regent  and  two  of  his  daughters  are  close 
to  mediocrity.  The  Regent  may  be  considered  an  off- 
shoot from  the  brilliant  Palatine  house,  otherwise  no 
genius  was  introduced  into  the  male  line.  Although  the 
twenty-three  give  us  no  exceptions  from  the  intellectual 
standpoint,  we  must  count  at  least  three  as  unexpected 


Orleans 


I23 


with  regard  to  moral  character,  and  we  have  in  those  few 
instances,  what  we  seldom  find,  an  argument  for  the  ad- 
vantages of  surroundings,  and  for  nothing  else. 

The  grades  for  Bourbon  and  Orleans  are  based  on  all  the  combined  and 
averaged  opinions  of  the  following:  Biographie  Universelle;  Rose’s  Biog.  Dic- 
tionary; Neau.  Biog.  Gen.;  Lippincott’s  ; de  Belgiojoso,  “Hist,  de  Savoie  ”; 
Gallenga;  St.  Simon,  see  index;  Taylor,  “Mems.  of  Orlean  ” ; Ed.  Barthe- 
lemy,  “Mesdames  de  France,”  and  “Les  filles  du  Regent”;  Precis.  Hist.  d’Or- 
leans;  C.  Yriarte,  “ Les  Princes  d’Orleans  ”;  Kitchen’s  “ History  of  France  ”; 
Guizot,  “ Hist,  of  France”;  Martin,  “ Hist,  de  France”;  Abbot’s  “Louis 
XIV  ” ; Ency.  Britannica;  F.  Rothschild.  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  X 


Spain 

(a)  Old  Castile , Aragon , and  Leon 

[424]— [509] 

The  early  history  of  this  ancient  family  is  coincident 
with  the  history  of  the  rise  of  Spain’s  eminence  as  a na- 
tion. Whatever  value  other  factors  may  have  had  in 
producing  Spain’s  glory,  the  presence  of  the  long  line  of 
great  rulers  and  warriors  must  have  been  one  of  the  most 
important.  This  influence  of  the  great  leaders  could 
make  itself  felt  then,  even  more  than  now.  Within 
recent  years  we  have  had  an  example  in  Lord  Roberts,  of 
what  genius  for  generalship  can  accomplish  in  the  turn 
of  events.  How  much  greater  impress  on  his  times  the 
great  man  must  have  made  in  those  mediaeval  days  when 
the  masses  knew  almost  nothing! 

I know  of  no  other  direct  line,  except  the  then  reigning 
one  in  Portugal,  where  greatness  was  maintained  for  so 
long  a period,  nor  has  there  appeared  any  other  than 
these  two  dynasties,  where  vigorous  and  distinguished 
blood  was  so  continuously  introduced  into  the  stock. 
Portugal  was  five  times  united  with  the  best  of  the  stock 
of  Spain,  to  its  evident  advantage.  Spain  took  wives 
three  times  from  Portugal.  Two  of  these,  the  marriage 
of  Ferdinand  II,  of  Leon  (d.  1187),  and  Ferdinand  IV 
(d.  1317),  were  of  great  benefit.  The  third  was  valuable 

124  , 


Spain 


I25 


as  far  as  the  introduction  of  Portugal’s  blood  was  con- 
cerned, but  happened  to  be  very  unwise,  because  it 
brought  back  again  in  a double  way  the  cruel  traits  of 
Sancho  IV,  which  resulted  in  producing  Peter  the  Cruel, 
whose  tyrannies  amounted  almost  to  madness. 

There  are  a few  exceptions  among  the  noble  characters, 
such  as  the  cruel  tyrants  just  referred  to,  whose  traits 
will  be  seen  to  be  evidently  caused  by  heredity.  Still,  for 
twenty-one  generations  in  the  direct  male  line  of  Castile, 
from  Sancho  II  in  the  tenth  century  to  Charles  V,  the 
greatest  ruler  of  his  time  (d.  1558),  there  were  only  five 
who  did  not  possess  a high  degree  of  strength  and  ability. 
These  were  Alfonso  IX,  Ferdinand  IV,  John  I,  John  II, 
and  Henry  IV,  of  Castile. 

The  three  last  mentioned  were  the  only  decidedly 
weak  kings,  and  were  closely  related.  The  causes  of 
this  temporary  running  out  and  subsequent  rejuvenation 
in  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  will  be  discussed  later. 

During  the  early  centuries  of  Christian  Spain,  the  con- 
ditions of  the  times  were  such  that  every  sovereign  was 
obliged  to  defend  his  right  to  the  throne  against  the  jeal- 
ousies of  his  family,  so  that  almost  constant  wars  were 
being  waged  among  the  nearest  kin,  and  it  was  practically 
impossible  that  several  generations  of  weak  and  incompe- 
tent kings  should  not  have  been  wrested  from  the  throne. 
This  factor  of  natural  selection  undoubtedly  did  much 
to  insure  the  strength  of  the  stock. 

The  long  minorities  of  the  sovereigns  of  Castile  and 
Aragon  which  occurred  time  and  again  during  these 
centuries,  have  always  been  considered  by  all  historians 
as  one  of  her  greatest  misfortunes,  leading  to  intrigues, 
civil  wars,  and  disasters;  affairs  being  put  in  a healthy 


126 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


condition  again  only  when  the  king  himself  was  old 
enough  to  take  things  in  his  own  hands. 

This  and  the  fact  that  the  country  invariably  gained 
ground  under  good  rulers,  and  just  as  certainly  lost  under 
weak  ones,  make  it  evident  how  much  more  important 
the  king  was  in  those  days  and  under  those  conditions 
than  he  has  been  during  recent  centuries  in  England, 
for  instance,  where  the  progress  has  been  due  to  the 
people  as  a whole,  especially  her  aristocracy  and  upper 
classes  * 

Such  a long  line  of  great  rulers  as  this,  such  an  almost 
unbroken  repetition  of  great  physical  and  mental  strength, 
is  almost  unparalleled,  save  by  Portugal,  in  all  history. 
If  there  is  much  in  heredity,  it  must  certainly  be  neces- 
sary here  to  show  that  the  dynasty  was  continually  main- 
tained by  the  introduction  of  just  such  great  qualities, 
either  from  the  best  part  of  its  own  stock  or  from  outside 
families. 

We  can  discuss  twenty  marriages  in  the  direct  line. 
The  following  fourteen  can  be  seen  to  have  introduced 
stock  equally  vigorous  and  able.  These  fourteen  are 
those  of  Sancho  II,  Ferdinand  I,  of  Leon,  Alfonso  VI, 
Ferdinand  II,  Alfonso  IX,  Ferdinand  III,  Alfonso  X, 
Ferdinand  IV,  Alfonso  II,  Henry  III,  Don  John,  John 
II,  of  Aragon,  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  Joanna  the  Mad. 
These  were  scattered  along  the  course,  and  sufficiently 
account  for  the  perpetuation  of  the  strain.  Many  of  these 
unions  were  remarkably  good,  being  well  backed  on  all 
sides.  Of  the  other  six,  four  were  “ obscure,”  tending 
that  much  to  dilute  the  distinguished  qualities. 

* Conj.  Havelock  Ellis,  “Study  of  British  Genius,”  Popular  Science 
Monthly,  Feb. -Sept.,  1901.  (Geniuses  have  come  from  the  upper  classes.) 


Spain 


127 


There  was  one,  the  marriage  of  Alfonso  VI[437],  that 
was  distinctly  bad,  as  its  average  value  was  incapable  as 
well  as  vicious.  The  remaining  one  introduced  mostly 
poor  stock,  but  had  a small  element  of  value  in  it.  I 
refer  to  the  marriage  of  John  I,  of  Castile.  Half  the 
pedigree  of  Henry  II,  of  Transtamara,  and  of  Alfonso 
VI,  are  uncertain  for  different  reasons,  as  will  appear. 
Beginning  now  with  the  most  ancient  times,  let  us  take 
up  the  character  of  each  sovereign  and  discuss  the  effect 
on  the  breed,  of  the  blood  introduced  in  the  marriage  of 
each. 

Sancho  I,  by  his  courage  and  mental  and  physical  en- 
ergy, extended  his  dominion  in  all  directions.  He  re- 
duced important  fortresses  on  both  banks  of  the  Ebro, 
recovered  Rioja,  and  conquered  the  country  from  Tudela 
to  Najera,  Tarragona  and  Agreda,  and  the  mountain 
districts  surrounding  the  sources  of  the  Duero.  He  was 
also  prudent  and  pious  by  nature,  and  his  conquests  were 
retained  throughout  his  life  by  the  wisdom  of  his  acts. 
He  died  in  994.  Sancho  married  Urraca,  daughter  of 
Ferdinand,  belonging  to  the  same  stock.  They  had  a 
son,  Garcia,  called  “the  Trembler,”  about  whom  little 
is  known  with  certainty  except  that  he  won  battles,  and 
apparently  he  was  a successful  warrior.  The  name  of 
“Trembler”  was  applied  to  him  because  before  battle, 
as  he  himself  put  it,  “My  body  trembles  before  the 
danger  to  which  my  courage  is  about  to  expose  it.”  The 
pedigreee  of  his  wife,  Ximenia,  is  unknown  to  me,  but 
from  this  time  on  to  the  present,  the  descent  of  the  female 
side  can  be  traced  with  very  satisfactory  completeness; 
and  it  is  these  pedigrees  which  show  that  qualities  were 
infused  in  the  stock  all  the  way  down  the  line,  sufficient 


128 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


to  keep  up  the  elements  of  greatness  which  never  ran 
out  in  Spain  until  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Charles, 
1558.  After  this  the  worst  possible  unions  were  made, 
and  then  Spain  fell. 

Sancho  II,  who  died  in  1035,  was  the  son  of  the  “Trem- 
bler.” He  must  have  had  great  ability  for  war  and  gov- 
ernment, as  he  made  himself  the  most  powerful  prince  of 
his  age  and  country.  He  married  Nunnia,  the  heiress 
of  Castile,  who  belonged  to  a powerful  family.  He  held 
what  he  got  by  inheritance  and  marriage,  and  even  ex- 
tended his  dominions  by  conquest.  He  was  called  “el 
Mayor,”  or  “the  Great.” 

Sancho  II  was  followed  by  his  son,  Ferdinand  I.  He 
had  high  abilities  and  virtues,  and  made  himself  the  most 
powerful  among  many  monarchs  in  Spain.  He  also  is 
called  in  history  “the  Great.”  He  married  a daughter 
of  Alfonso  V,  of  Leon,  a successful  soldier  and  ruler,  and 
the  son  of  the  valiant  Bermudo  II,  who  had  won  distinc- 
tion by  defeating  the  Moors. 

Ferdinand  died  in  1065.  His  son,  Alfonso  VI,  was  a 
great  warrior,  and  called  “the  Valiant.”  Alfonso  VI 
allied  himself  to  an  outside  stock.  He  married  a daughter 
of  Robert,  Duke  of  Burgundy.  It  does  not  appear  that 
her  ancestors  were  especially  distinguished,  except  that 
her  great-grandfather  was  Hugh  Capet.  This  cannot 
be  classed  among  the  brilliant  matches  from  the  present 
point  of  view,  as  the  great  qualities  were  so  remote. 

Their  daughter,  Urraca,  became  queen.  She  was 
overbearing  and  tyrannical  in  her  conduct,  with  morals 
of  very  questionable  repute,  and  her  mind  was  of  a light 
and  trivial  order,  though  her  ambition  was  as  great  as  it 
was  unprincipled.  “She  left  to  posterity  a character 


Spain 


129 


darkened  by  many  crimes  and  scarcely  redeemed  by  a 
single  virtue.”  Her  reign,  1109-1126,  was,  fortunately 
for  her  people,  short,  though  she  succeeded  in  keeping 
the  country  embroiled  in  family  feuds.  Urraca  is  the 
first  met  with  in  this  group  who  had  any  such  traits.  On 
searching  for  the  character  of  her  mother’s  people,  who 
must  have  introduced  these  qualities  if  they  came  by 
heredity,  I found  her  amply  accounted  for  in  her  grand- 
father and  his  mother.  Robert,  Duke  of  Burgundy,  her 
grandfather,  is  described  in  a short  column  in  “La 
Biographie  Universelle,”  most  of  which  tells  of  his  vio- 
lent temper.  His  mother,  Constance,  was  a “wicked  in- 
triguer,” and  instigated  his  revolting  from  his  weak  and 
peace-loving  father,  King  Robert,  of  France.  “Robert 
(the  Duke)  had  a most  violent  temper,  and  was  capable 
in  the  excesses  of  his  anger  of  the  most  atrocious  ex- 
tremes.” He  showed  no  application  to  affairs  of  state, 
and  abandoned  the  government  to  cruel  and  incompe- 
tent ministers.  Queen  Urraca  married  Raymond,  Count 
of  Burgundy.  He  was  not  at  all  distinguished,  nor  were 
his  family. 

The  successor  of  the  notorious  Queen  Urraca  was  Al- 
fonso VII,  who  luckily  did  not  repeat  his  mother’s  char- 
acter. Unfortunately  for  our  purpose  we  cannot  be  sure 
who  was  his  father,  owing  to  the  licentiousness  of  the 
queen.  The  characteristics  of  this  son  and  his  effect  on 
the  country  may  be  well  shown  by  quoting  Dunham,' 
“History  of  Spain  and  Portugal,”  ii,  165: 

“Alfonso  was  no  common  monarch.  Though  he  lost 
Portugal  and  was  unable  to  withstand  the  genius  of  his 
namesake  of  Aragon,  whom  he  imitated  in  assuming  the 
imperial  title,  yet  with  fewer  pretensions,  though  he  is 


i3o  Heredity  in  Royalty 

undeserving  the  exaggerated  praises  of  the  national  his- 
torians, it  cannot  be  denied  that  he  exhibited  great  firm- 
ness in  circumstances  often  very  difficult,  that  he  caused 
his  territory  to  be  respected  by  his  Christian  neighbors 
and  greatly  aggrandized  it  at  the  expense  of  the  Moham- 
medans. His  talents,  however,  were  inferior  to  his  am- 
bition, and  his  moderation  to  both.” 

If  this  Alfonso  VII  had  wedded  only  average  qualities, 
it  is  probable  that  the  ancient  greatness  of  the  race  would 
have  run  out,  but  what  happened  is  unusual  in  the  story 
of  families.  Just  at  the  time  when  it  is  weakened  by 
dilution,  it  is  again  strengthened  by  the  qualities  of  a 
great  man.  The  wife  of  Alfonso  was  the  daughter  of 
Raymond  Berenguer  III  (d.  1131),  Count  of  Provence,  a 
prudent  sovereign  who  extended  his  dominions  by  inher- 
itance, marriage,  and  victory  in  battle,  ruled  fifty  years, 
and  actually  carried  his  conquests  across  the  sea  to  the 
shores  of  Majorica  and  made  successful  wars  against  the 
Moslems. 

The  product  of  this  union  was  Ferdinand  II  (1187),  of 
Leon.  He  was  a very  able  general,  and  had  many  esti- 
mable and  generous  personal  qualities.  He  made  a mar- 
riage calculated  to  perpetuate  the  great  qualities  of  his 
stock,  that  with  Urraca,  daughter  of  Alfonso  I,  the  great 
founder  of  Portugal,  who,  by  consulting  the  Portugal  chart, 
may  be  seen  to  be  backed  up  by  distinguished  fathers  and 
grandfathers,  and  to  have  himself  derived  in  part  his 
genius  for  war  from  the  same  stock  of  Spain  already  dis- 
cussed, namely,  Alfonso  VI,  “the  Valiant.” 

However,  Alfonso  IX,  his  son,  was  without  distin- 
guished qualities  or  virtues.  Coming,  as  he  does,  at  the 
union  of  greatness,  he  must  be  counted  as  an  exception. 


Spain 


x3i 

Still,  the  genius  of  the  race  does  not  die  here.  His  mar- 
riage was  one  of  the  very  best,  as  his  wife,  Berengaria, 
was  a famous  heroine  of  Spanish  history.  She  was  a 
truly  great  and  noble  woman.  Not  only  in  her  own 
qualities,  but  by  her  ancestors,  she  must  have  brought  into 
Spain  one  of  the  best  strains  that  any  royal  person  at 
that  time  would  have  been  likely  to  have  represented. 
She  was  the  daughter  of  Alfonso  VIII,  of  Castile,  rightly 
called  “the  Noble,”  whose  reign  was  of  great  benefit  to 
the  country,  himself  a son  of  a successful  warrior  during 
a short  career,  and  grandson  of  Alfonso  VII,  already  noted 
for  his  success.  Her  grandfather  was  Henry  II,  one  of 
England’s  most  vigorous  and  able  kings;  according  to 
Hume,  “the  greatest  prince  of  his  time  for  wisdom, 
virtue,  and  abilities.” 

After  the  death  of  Alfonso  IX,  the  throne  was  taken  up 
by  Ferdinand  III,  his  son.  “He  was  a just,  pious,  able, 
and  paternal  ruler,  as  well  as  a valiant  soldier.”  He  tri- 
umphed over  the  infidels,  and  considerably  extended  his 
domains.  His  wife  was  a daughter  of  the  Emperor 
Philip,  a vigorous,  warlike  character,  who,  being  assassi- 
nated when  only  thirty  years  old,  never  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  display  his  real  abilities.  Philip  was  the  son  of 
Frederick  Barbarossa,  the  greatest  man  and  greatest 
power  of  his  day.  Thus  a certain  amount  of  able  blood 
was  here  introduced.  The  power  of  the  country  was 
considerably  increased  under  Ferdinand  III. 

Alfonso  X,  wTho  was  the  son  of  Ferdinand  III,  had 
abilities  and  ambition,  but  was  not  at  all  a man  suited 
to  the  times.  He  was  weak  and  irresolute,  not  obeyed 
by  his  subordinates,  and  his  reign  was  far  from  success- 
ful. His  time  was  devoted  to  learning  and  the  advance- 


132  Heredity  in  Royalty 

ment  of  science,  which  alone  prospered  under  his  rule. 
He  showed  a slight  amount  of  cruelty,  but  this  was  not 
conspicuous  compared  with  others  in  this  age  and  land. 
There  is  no  question  but  that  Alfonso  X,  called  “ the 
Wise,”  was  a man  of  great  intellect. 

His  character  forms  an  exception,  and  is  the  only  one 
of  the  sort  I have  met  with  in  this  region.  It  is  easily 
accounted  for  by  a combination  of  ancestral  qualities, 
but  such  combinations  are  apparently  far  from  common. 
He  was  a poet,  scientist,  and  writer,  and  through  his  in- 
fluence learning  was  greatly  advanced.  He  is  said  to 
have  been  the  first  royal  personage  who  was  also  a man 
of  letters.  The  marriage  of  Alfonso  X with  Violanta, 
undoubtedly  served,  to  a certain  extent,  to  perpetuate  the 
strength  of  the  stock,  for  his  wife  was  a daughter  of 
James,  the  Giant  Conqueror  of  Aragon.  Still,  James, 
with  his  great  abilities  as  a warrior,  was  violent,  cruel, 
passionate,  and  licentious;  and  aside  from  James,  there  is 
not  much  distinguished  blood  in  the  characteristics  of 
Violanta’s  pedigree. 

We  now  come  to  a period  of  misfortune  for  Christian 
Spain,  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  how  closely  the  wel- 
fare of  the  country  follows  the  character  of  the  sover- 
eigns, how  great  the  impress  of  the  ruler  was  on  his  times 
in  those  early  days,  in  spite  of  the  theoretical  representa- 
tion of  the  people  in  the  popular  council  of  the  Cortes. 

During  the  reigns  of  the  next  two  succeeding  monarchs, 
Sancho  IV  and  Ferdinand  IV,  the  family  feuds  and  lack 
of  a strong  and  wise  ruler  affected  the  country  so  disas- 
trously that  practically  anarchy  may  be  said  to  have 
prevailed. 

Sancho  IV  inherited  the  cruel,  passionate  disposition 


Spain 


x33 


of  his  grandfather,  James  of  Aragon,  without  his  wisdom. 
His  character  was  also  warlike,  vigorous,  and  cruel,  and 
the  only  good  fruits  of  his  reign  were  his  conquests  against 
the  Moors,  whom  he  defeated  in  Andalusia,  and  even 
carried  his  victories  into  Tarifa,  a town  in  the  very  furthest 
extremity  of  Spain.  The  marriage  Sancho  made,  when 
considered  on  the  grounds  of  perpetuating  greatness,  may 
be  considered,  half  or  more  than  half  good.  His  queen, 
Mary,  though  descended  from  largely  “obscure”  stock, 
was  the  great-granddaughter  of  the  famous  heroine,  Ber- 
engaria,  already  mentioned.  She  was  her  worthy  de- 
scendant, for  she  repeated  her  character  in  every  partic- 
ular. Resolute,  calm,  and  devoted,  she  was  an  astute 
diplomatist  and  politician.  Whatever  successes  marked 
Castilian  affairs,  were  due  largely  to  her. 

Sancho’s  reign  was  short,  lasting  only  eleven  years. 
During  the  life  of  the  queen  mother,  she  exercised,  as 
we  have  said,  a beneficial  influence,  but  after  her  death 
the  reign  of  the  feeble  Ferdinand  IV  was  one  long  list  of 
disasters.  Some  may  wonder  why  Ferdinand,  coming 
from  vigorous  parentage,  should  have  been  so  weak;  but 
as  many  of  his  immediate  ancestors  were  not  endowed 
with  vigorous  minds,  he  had,  of  course,  a chance  to  get 
qualities  from  the  poorer  of  them.  He  did  repeat  the 
cruel,  passionate,  and  tyrannical  disposition  to  perfection, 
but  no  one  appears  to  have  paid  any  attention  to  his 
wishes. 

Now  again  when  the  mental  qualities  are  threatened 
we  find  them  brilliantly  restored.  Constantine,  the  wife 
of  Ferdinand,  was  a daughter  of  the  best  of  the  blood  of 
Portugal.  It  is  interesting  to  see  Alfonso  X,  the  scholar 
and  poet,  again  in  his  grandson  Dennis,  of  Portugal,  in 


*34 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


another  country  and  in  another  day  where  probably  no 
influence  of  environment  could  come  into  play.  Alfonso 
was  the  first  and  he  was  the  second  royal  personage  who 
was  also  a man  of  letters.  The  issue  of  this  union  was 
another  of  the  heroes  of  old  Castile,  Alfonso  XI,  who 
succeeded  to  the  throne  in  1312,  when  only  one  year 
old;  grew  to  be  a great  warrior  against  the  Moors,  and, 
taking  after  his  maternal  grandmother,  possessed  a large 
share  of  prudence  and  virtue,  some  of  the  rarer  charac- 
teristics of  his  tribe.  As  an  example  of  the  respect  felt 
for  him  even  by  his  enemies,  the  following  may  suffice: 
The  Moorish  king  of  Granada  is  said  to  have  exclaimed 
when  he  heard  of  Alfonso’s  death,  “We  have  lost  the 
best  king  in  the  world  — one  who  knew  how  to  honor 
the  worthy,  whether  friend  or  foe.”  This  eulogy  is,  how- 
ever, somewhat  offset  by  the  evidence  that  he  was  ex- 
tremely cruel  at  times. 

It  is  now  to  be  noted  that  there  are  an  unusual  number 
in  the  pedigree  of  Alfonso,  who  have  the  adjective  “ cruel  ” 
or  some  other  designation  of  depravity  attached  to  them. 
A close  intermarriage  here  will  undoubtedly  give  rise  to 
some  of  those  great  and  valiant  qualities,  courage,  en- 
ergy, and  ability,  in  the  leadership  of  men,  which  were 
possessed  by  some,  though  not  by  all  these  royal  lords 
and  dames.  There  is  a fair  chance  that  the  literary  or 
possibly  the  pious  and  amiable  qualities  may  reappear. 
But  such  a close  intermarriage  would  be  a hazardous  one 
to  say  the  least. 

Let  us  take  a survey  of  the  pedigree  of  Alfonso  XI  in 
order  to  see  what  proportionate  amount  of  cruelty  and 
depravity  there  is  in  the  ancestry  of  each  succeeding 
generation. 


J35 


Spain 

In  five  degrees  of  kinship  back  of  Ferdinand  II  (d. 
1187)  we  find  three  such,  among  the  nine  persons  whose 
records  were  obtainable.  In  the  same  degree  for  Alfonso 
IX  there  were  only  two  among  the  nine.  Ferdinand  III 
(d.  1252),  who  represents  the  next  generation,  had  but 
three  degenerate  ancestors  among  the  twelve.  In  the 
same  degree  of  kinship  for  his  son  Alfonso  X,  we  find 
five  among  eighteen.  For  the  next  generation  (Sancho 
IV),  the  number  is  two  in  twelve.  Ferdinand  IV  (d. 
1312),  his  son,  had  three  in  fifteen.  So  we  see  that  this 
type  of  character,  though  common,  was  present  in  Span- 
ish royalty  in  these  early  centuries  only  to  the  extent  of 
about  one  in  four  or  five;  but  in  the  ancestry  of  Alfonso 
XI,  on  account  of  a gathering  of  this  cruel  type,  we  find 
no  less  than  eleven  such  among  the  fifteen  who  could 
furnish  records  of  any  sort.  It  is  simply  that  about 
Alfonso  XI  there  happens  to  be  brought  together  a num- 
ber of  strains  from  the  four  different  countries,  Aragon, 
Castile,  Hungary,  and  Portugal,  each  containing  an  aver- 
age amount  of  the  qualities  in  question.  However,  owing 
to  strange  jumping  about,  which  so  many  characteristics 
show  in  the  course  of  hereditary  transmission,  Alfonso 
himself  shows  little  of  them,  but  is  himself  the  bridge 
over  which  they  pass  to  appear  in  his  son,  whose  actions 
seemed  more  like  that  of  a demon  than  a man  — the 
incarnation  of  cruelty  itself. 

A very  close  intermarriage  was  made  by  this  Alfonso 
XI  of  Castile.  His  wife  was  the  daughter  of  Alfonso  IV, 
of  Portugal,  a brilliant  warrior,  but  withal  a cruel  tyrant, 
and  of  all  rulers  in  Portugal  “perchance  the  one  whose 
memory  has  been  most  severely  open  to  criticism.”  * 

* McMurdo’s  “History  of  Portugal,”  vol.  ii,  p.  198. 


136  Heredity  in  Royalty 

Now  let  us  see  what  proportion  of  the  passionate  and 
cruel  would  be  found  in  five  degrees  of  kinship  for  a 
child  of  Alfonso  XI  by  such  a wedlock.  Owing  to  the 
intermarriage  we  find  but  eleven  different  persons,  as  sev- 
eral names  appear  twice.  There  are  only  three  who  are 
free  from  the  characteristics  in  question,  or  eight  in 
eleven  show  the  passionate  and  cruel  type.  If  we  take 
all  for  six  degrees  removed,  we  find  the  number  even 
worse,  eleven  in  fourteen.  A son  could  scarcely  escape 
the  worst  sort  of  inheritance,  except  by  the  greatest  for- 
tune. What  did  happen  was  this.  Peter,  the  only  legiti- 
mate son  of  Alfonso  XI,  known  in  all  history  as  Peter 
the  Cruel,  amused  himself  in  some  such  way  as  the 
following:  He  imprisoned  and  foully  treated  his  first 
wife,  Blanche  of  Bourbon,  and  during  the  first  part  of 
his  reign  had  many  noblemen,  among  others,  Don  John, 
his  cousin,  executed  in  his  presence.  Once,  it  is  stated, 
in  the  presence  of  the  ladies  of  the  court  he  commanded 
a number  of  gentlemen  to  be  butchered  until  the  queen, 
his  mother,  fell  into  a dead  faint  in  company  with  most 
of  the  ladies  present.  He  then  caused  to  be  murdered 
his  own  aunt,  Donna  Leonora,  of  Aragon,  mother  of  the 
above  Don  Juan,  for  nothing  except  that  Aragon  would 
not  make  peace  with  him  — “being  compelled  to  get 
Moors  to  do  the  job,  as  no  Castilian  could  be  induced  to 
undertake  it,”  says  King  Pedro  IV,  of  Aragon,  in  his 
memoirs.  A certain  priest  coming  before  him  to  say  that 
St.  Domingo  had  appeared  to  him  in  a dream  and  coun- 
seled him  to  tell  the  king  that  he  would  meet  his  death 
at  the  hands  of  his  brother,  Henry,  Peter  insisted  that  the 
priest  must  have  been  prompted  by  Don  Henry  himself, 
and  so  ordered  the  poor  dreamer  to  be  burnt  alive.  One 


Spain 


*37 


lady,  Urraca  Osorio,  for  refusing  his  addresses,  was  burnt 
alive  in  the  market-place  of  Seville.  Another  disfigured 
herself  in  order  to  escape  his  attentions.  “He  was  as 
devoid  of  generosity  as  of  pity,  as  reckless  of  the  truth  as 
of  life,  as  greedy  of  gain  as  of  blood  — a false  knight,  a 
perjured  husband,  a brutal  son.”  * 

Thus  Peter  the  Cruel  is  amply  accounted  for  by  her- 
edity alone,  without  bringing  in  the  question  of  the  in- 
heritance of  any  acquired  characters;  and  it  does  seem 
that  this  brutality  could  not  be  the  result  of  the  envi- 
ronment in  which  he  lived,  since  before  his  day,  when 
times  were  even  rougher,  we  find  so  many  kings  and 
queens  possessing  every  virtue.  There  were  never  any 
before  as  bad  as  Peter,  nor  were  there  any,  on  grounds 
of  heredity  alone,  as  likely  to  be  so.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  he  was  the  great-great-grandfather  of  Richard 
III,  of  England,  with  whom  he  is  often  compared.  Peter’s 
actions  cost  him  the  loss  of  most  of  his  subjects,  and 
finally  his  life  at  the  hands  of  his  bastard  brother,  Henry, 
who  had  somewhat  the  same  characteristics,  though  in  a 
lesser  degree. 

Henry  established  a new  line  under  the  title  of  Henry 
II.  His  own  origin  was,  probably,  without  distinction 
on  his  mother’s  side,  and  this  is  one  of  the  four  successive 
unions  now  to  be  discussed  which  cannot  in  any  way  be 
used  to  illustrate  the  perpetuation  of  genius.  It  is  also 
at  this  time  that  we  find  four  incompetent  rulers,  three 
of  whom  are  described  as  imbeciles.  This  is  very  sig- 
nificant, though  I do  not  see  that  the  imbecility  of  John  I, 
of  Castile,  is  at  all  properly  accounted  for  by  heredity. 
Mere  weakness,  cruelty,  and  licentiousness  might  well  be 

* Watts,  “The  Christian  Recovery  of  Spain.” 


138  Heredity  in  Royalty 

expected,  but  not  imbecility  in  the  medical  sense  of  the 
word,  and  I do  not  know  that  this  medical  sense  is  im- 
plied by  the  historians  when  using  this  term  in  connec- 
tion with  these  persons.  The  origin  of  the  well-known 
insanity  in  the  Spanish  and  Austrian  houses,  perpetu- 
ated over  thirteen  generations  and  involving  more  than 
a score  of  individuals,  is  a very  interesting  question.  It 
cannot  be  traced  with  certainty  prior  to  Isabella,  the 
Queen  of  John  II,  of  Castile.  This  Isabella  was  out  and 
out  insane,  according  to  the  English  alienist,  W.  W.  Ire- 
land ; * and  from  her,  onward,  the  insanity  passed  along 
in  one  form  or  another  by  the  very  intermarriages  which 
their  pride  and  political  motives  caused  them  to  arrange, 
with  the  intended  idea  of  making  permanent  their  world 
power,  but  with  the  inevitable  result  of  losing  that  same 
prestige  by  placing  it  in  the  hands  of  the  unfortunate 
children  whose  inheritance  was  necessarily  mental  weak- 
ness as  the  result  of  such  unwise  wedlocks. 

Without  taking  up  the  characters  separately,  we  need 
only  a complete  genealogical  chart  to  get  a clear  idea  of 
the  predetermined  cause  which  led  to  the  peculiar  char- 
acters who  were  foremost  during  this  epoch,  and  to  see 
how  perfectly  natural  it  was  that  there  should  have  been 
some  exhibiting  the  most  depraved  characteristics,  while 
others,  like  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  were  fortunate  enough 
to  inherit  the  genius  which  we  see  is  likewise  present  in 
a conspicuous  degree.  The  chart  shows  that  Isabella 
might  be  expected  to  be  greater  than  Ferdinand.  She 
had  five  elements  of  genius  in  her  pedigree,  being,  through 
intermarriage,  twice  the  great-granddaughter  of  John  of 
Gaunt,  Duke  of  Lancaster,  one  of  the  great  men  of  his 

* Ireland,  “Blot  upon  the  Brain.”  Edin.,  1885. 


Spain 


i39 


day;  and  John  the  Great,  of  Portugal,  appears  twice  in 
the  pedigree  for  the  same  reason.  She  was  also  the 
granddaughter  of  Henry  III,  of  Castile,  who  was  a model 
of  all  that  a king  should  be.  Both  Ferdinand  and  Isa- 
bella possessed  high  ability,  as  can  be  fully  confirmed  by 
consulting  any  history  of  the  times.  They  were  married 
through  personal  choice  of  the  queen,  as  she  appreciated 
in  Ferdinand  a man  worthy  of  her  love.  Nothing  could 
be  better  for  the  welfare  of  the  country  than  that  two 
such  able  rulers  should  sit  upon  the  throne  at  once.  But 
Ferdinand  was  her  second  cousin  and  the  descendant  of 
weak  or  perfidious  rulers. 

We  now  see  that  the  children  of  this  union  have  two 
estimable  parents,  but  they  have  a remarkably  bad  lot  of 
grandparents;  and  back  of  this  we  find  the  worst  weak- 
nesses in  some,  while  in  others  is  much  ability  of  a very 
high  sort.  We  should  not  expect  a child  to  be  ordinary. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  most  extraordinary  is  only  to  be 
expected.  The  two  descendants  whom  we  have  here  to 
consider  are  Joanna  and  her  son,  the  Emperor,  Charles 
V[5Ub  The  former  got  the  insanity  and  imbecility,  the 
latter  the  genius  and  a touch  of  the  psychosis  as  well. 
Every  one  in  this  region  of  the  chart  fills  in  a link  in  a 
way  to  be  expected  and  is  readily  and  perfectly  explained. 

This  completes  the  study  of  the  old  Castile,  Leon,  and 
Aragon  families.  Let  us  review  their  characteristics. 
This  subgroup  contains  ninety-seven  names.  The  char- 
acter and  ability  of  the  ninety-seven  have  been  found  in 
sixty-three  cases  with  sufficient  fullness  for  the  purpose  in 
hand.  The  other  thirty-four  must  be  marked  “ obscure.” 
They  are  valuable  in  a negative  way.  There  were  about 
thirty-nine  of  the  total  who  had  very  marked  ability, 


140 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


evidently  considerably  above  the  average  of  kings  and 
queens,  and  such  as  should  place  them  in  grades  (7)  to 
(10)  of  the  standard  here  used.  This  percentage  of  over 
one  in  three  is  a high  one,  but  the  most  striking  fact  is 
that  out  of  the  forty-one  actual  sovereigns  on  the  thrones 
of  Castile,  Leon,  and  Aragon,  no  less  than  twenty  are  of 
this  (7)-(io)  standard,  while  twelve  more  are  in  grade 
(6)  for  intellect,  leaving  only  nine  out  of  forty-one  below 
the  average.  This  I attribute  in  part  to  the  constant 
struggle  between  the  rival  families,  between  brothers  of 
the  same  family  and  other  close  relatives,  in  their  jealous 
greed  for  power  and  domain,  thus  keeping  up  a struggle 
for  existence,  capable  of  showing  itself  in  results,  and 
partly  to  fortuitous  chance  endowing  the  heir  to  the  throne 
with  the  qualities  of  the  stronger  rather  than  the  weaker 
of  his  ancestry.  The  number  who  were  weak  or  indo- 
lent is  correspondingly  small,  though  high  temper,  jeal- 
ousy, and  ambition  are  present  in  nearly  all. 

I find  about  six  persons  to  whom  the  terms  feeble, 
characterless,  and  indolent,  are  applied.  Two  of  these, 
Andrew  II,  King  of  Hungary,  and  Ferdinand  IV,  of  Cas- 
tile, are  apart  from  the  others.  The  remaining  four  are 
very  closely  related,  being  father,  son,  nephew,  and  his 
son.  These  are  John  I,  John  II,  Henry  IV,  of  Castile, 
and  Ferdinand  I,  of  Aragon. 

The  family  had  already  existed  twelve  generations  be- 
fore these  characteristics  appeared  in  it.  In  the  tenth 
generation  one  of  the  greatest  names  is  found  in  Ferdi- 
nand III,  and  even  in  the  nineteenth  and  twenty-first 
generations  some  of  the  best  and  most  vigorous  and  am- 
bitious appear  in  Ferdinand,  Isabella,  and  the  Emperor 
Charles  V,  all  of  whom  were  the  descendants  of  the  privi- 


Spain 


I4I 

leged  few  with  a pedigree  practically  entirely  of  this  class, 
extending  back  through  more  than  twenty  generations 
on  all  sides,  and  including  many  thousands  of  noble 
titles. 

These  names  which  close  the  group  are  as  great  as 
those  which  opened  it.  How  can  this  be  if  the  assump- 
tion of  rank  and  power  is  to  lead  to  degeneration?  It 
may  be  argued  that  the  necessity  for  action  in  these 
times  of  incessant  strife  obliged  the  individuals  to  be 
energetic,  and  so  the  characters  were  the  product  of  their 
times,  but  we  have  seen  that  the  selection  alone  would 
produce  this.  Furthermore,  against  the  environment  ex- 
planation we  must  remember  the  great  number  of  able 
and  vigorous  men  who  appear  much  later  in  history  in 
other  countries,  even  in  modern  times,  and  the  descend- 
ants of  forty  instead  of  twenty  generations  of  blue-bloods. 
The  modern  Saxe-Coburg- Gotha  chart  is  almost  entirely 
free  from  weaknesses  and  indolence. 

The  insanity  apparently  started  in  Peter  the  Cruel. 
We  have  seen  how  his  character  might  well  have  been 
the  result  of  a combination  of  a large  number  of  cruel 
persons.  This  insanity  continually  reappeared  in  Spain, 
where  one  finds  it  most  frequently.  It  occasionally  ap- 
peared in  Austria,  where  it  was  less  often  introduced. 
It  was  also  probably  the  origin  of  the  Plantagenet  neuro- 
sis, the  full  history  of  which  I have  not  yet  had  time  to 
study  with  any  completeness. 

(b)  Hapsburgs  in  Spain. 

[510J  — [535.] 

The  pedigree  of  Philip  the  Handsome,  who  married 
the  mad  Joanna,  of  Spain,  contains  the  great  fighting 


142 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


qualities  of  the  old  kings,  tremendous  energy,  and  great 
ruling  functions,  without  a bit  of  the  insanity  and  weak- 
nesses shown  in  Castile  and  Leon.  This  was  the  famous 
marriage  that  placed  the  Hapsburgs  on  the  highest  pin- 
nacle of  power  — a marriage  almost  certain  to  produce 
genius,  and  as  certain  to  produce  some  descendants 
whose  heritage  would  be  imbecility  or  weakness,  or  whose 
ambition  would  only  lead  them  to  mad  extremes.  Both 
the  genius  and  the  insanity  appear  quite  as  we  should 
expect,  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  psycho-neuroses  are 
now  seen  to  appear  for  the  first  time  in  the  Hapsburgs, 
since  they  are  introduced  into  this  family  through  the 
blood  of  Castile  and  Leon;  and,  furthermore,  these  afflic- 
tions appear  at  once.  From  this  time  onward,  insanity 
is  rampant.  Why  should  it  have  remained  so,  and  not 
have  diminished  through  reversion  to  the  mean?  Let  us 
look  at  the  subsequent  marriages. 

The  Emperor  Charles  V[514]  married  Isabella,  a daugh- 
ter of  Emanuel  the  First,  of  Portugal,  a mediocre  king, 
and  an  inbred  descendant  of  the  great  Portugal  house. 
Her  mother  was  a sister  of  the  mad  Joanna,  and  grand- 
daughter of  John  the  imbecile  and  Isabella  the  insane. 
So  this  may  be  called  a rather  close  intermarriage,  as 
well  as  an  unadvisable  one.  The  Emperod5141  himself 
was  somewhat  eccentric.  He  was  cruel  as  well  as  inor- 
dinately ambitious,  but  he  was  withal  a great  ruler. 
Towards  the  latter  part  of  his  life  he  was  especially  sub- 
ject to  melancholia.  The  effect  of  this  unwise  marriage 
was,  of  course,  to  perpetuate  these  traits.  We  shall  see 
under  Austria  how  the  evil  qualities  were  much  less  con- 
spicuous, and  how  the  influence  of  outside  stock  made 
itself  felt  in  counteracting  these  undesirable  perversions. 


Spain 


143 


The  descendants  bred  true  to  kind,  and  in  all  regions  of 
the  chart  we  find  the  vicious  qualities  appearing  in  places 
where  we  should  most  expect  them,  that  is,  in  places 
where  the  intermarriages  were  closest. 

It  is  a matter  of  common  belief  that  intermarriage  alone 
is  a cause  of  insanity,  therefore  it  is  worth  while  to  con- 
sider that  here  it  is  merely  perpetuating  what  already 
exists,  and  cannot  be  considered  the  cause  of  its  beginning. 
In  a later  chapter  this  question  will  be  more  fully  dis- 
cussed. It  was  not  yet  time  for  the  intellectual  qualities 
to  entirely  disappear,  for  Charles  V[514]  had  two  descend- 
ants who  are  celebrated  historical  characters.  These  were 
Don  John,  of  Austria[522],  and  Alexander  Farnese, 
both  of  whom  so  distinguished  themselves  by  virtue  of 
their  great  abilities,  that  abundant  material  can  be  found 
in  any  biographical  dictionary  to  confirm  the  belief  that 
these  men  were  geniuses.  His  grandson,  Albert,  Arch- 
duke of  Austria  and  Governor  of  the  Netherlands,  son 
of  Maximilian  II,  was  a man  of  high,  though  not  the 
highest,  talents.  There  are  three  others  worth  mention- 
ing in  this  connection.  The  Archduke  Charles[530],  his 
great-grandson,  is  spoken  of  in  this  way: 

“He  died  in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  his  age  of  a malig- 
nant fever.  He  was  deeply  regretted  by  the  nation,  being 
universally  considered  a prince  of  extraordinary  merit  and 
endowments  . . . active  and  ambitious  spirit.”  * 

The  Cardinal  Ferdinand[531],  his  brother,  was  a man 
of  equal  mark  and  merit,  who,  as  Governor  of  the 
Netherlands,  warded  off  Spain’s  impending  disasters 
until  his  untimely  death  brought  a great  loss  upon  his 
country.  He  is  spoken  of  in  the  highest  terms  by  all 

* Dunlop,  “Mem.  Spain.” 


144  Heredity  in  Royalty 

historians,  especially  for  his  bravery,  prudence,  and  mag- 
nanimity* 

It  is  noteworthy  that  two  of  these  five  were  illegitimate, 
and  that  the  greatest,  Alexander  Farnese  and  Don 
John^5221,  were  these  two.  It  seems  probable  that  owing 
to  the  extremely  high-strung  and  unstable  condition  of 
nearly  all  the  members  of  the  family,  a union  with  an 
entirely  different  class  of  people  would  be  of  advantage 
to  the  health  and  balance  of  mind.  It  was  not  so  much 
that  ability  was  needed  as  a toning  down  of  the  excessive- 
ness that  had  been  manifesting  itself  in  so  many  ways. 

Of  these  mentioned,  one  was  a son,  two  were  grand- 
sons, and  two  were  great-grandsons.  The  most  eminent 
were  the  closest  related  to  the  high  wave  centering  around 
the  Emperor  Charles  V ; and  it  is  probable  that  the  num- 
ber of  more  distant  relations  would  not  have  been  so 
large,  but  for  the  close  intermarriages,  giving  the  genius 
a chance  to  be  further  perpetuated  than  would  ordinarily 
have  been  the  case. 

The  kings  of  Spain  never  again  had  anything  of  the 
renowned  abilities  of  Isabella,  Charles  V,  or  the  cele- 
brated warriors  of  early  days,  like  Alfonso  VI  (1126), 
James  I,  of  Aragon,  or  John  the  Great,  of  Portugal. 
It  might  have  been  that  some  of  the  eldest  sons  should 
have  inherited  the  great  qualities  instead  of  the  inferior 
ones,  but  Spain  may  be  said  to  have  been  unlucky  in  this; 
and  as  the  next  three,  Philip  II,  III,  and  IV,  did  not  get 
the  best,  in  each  succeeding  generation  the  chances  of 
genius  reappearing  became  more  and  more  dim  until  the 
probabilities  of  a reversion  were  entirely  unlikely. 

Let  us  now  notice  the  psycho-neuroses  in  this  same 

* Dunlop,  “Mem.  Spain,”  vol.  i,  p.  183,  also  Hume’s  “Spain.” 


CHARLES  V OF  AUSTRIA  AND  I OF  SPAIN  [514J. 


PHILIP  II  OF  SPAIN 


PHILIP  III  OF  SPAIN  [320]. 


PHILIP  IV  OF  SPA  IN  m. 


MARY,  QUEEN  OF  HUNGARY  [516], 
Sister  of  Charles  V. 


MARY  [519], 

Daughter  of  Charles  V,  married  Maximilian  II  of 
Austria. 


JOANNA  OF  AUSTRIA  [520]. 

Married  John  of  Portugal,  daughter  of  [5I4], 


ISABELLA  [5M], 
Daughter  of  Philip  II. 


Spain 


H5 


region.  The  amount  of  insanity,  or  at  least  marked  devi- 
ation from  the  normal,  should  be  strikingly  conspicuous 
owing  to  the  intermarriages.  It  is  so.  Philip  II  is  de- 
scribed in  this  way  by  Motley. 

“He  was  believed  to  be  the  reverse  of  the  Emperor  [his 
father].  Charles  sought  great  enterprises,  Philip  would 
avoid  them.  . . . The  son  was  reserved,  cautious,  sus-  - 
picious  of  all  men  and  capable  of  sacrificing  a realm  from 
hesitation  and  timidity.  The  father  had  a genius  for 
action,  the  son  a predilection  for  repose.  His  talents 
were  in  truth  very  much  below  mediocrity.  A petty  pas- 
sion for  contemptible  details  characterized  him  from 
youth  . . . diligent  with  great  ambition.  . . . He  was 
grossly  licentious  and  cruel.”  * 

Philip  II  evidently  took  after  his  grandmother,  Joanna 
the  Mad,  who  was  weak  and  melancholic.  He  did  not 
resemble  either  his  father  or  mother.  Both  of  Philip’s 
marriages  were,  from  the  biological  point  of  view,  ex- 
tremely unwise,  the  first  being  worse  than  the  second,  as 
Mary,  his  first  wife,  was  a daughter  of  John  III,  of  Portu- 
gal, who  was  weak  and  bigoted,  in  fact,  a man  much  like 
Philip  himself.  Philip’s  wife  was  doubly  related  to  him, 
being  both  first  and  second  cousin,  and  this  relation 
came  by  way  of  the  insane  ancestors.  So  what  wonder 
that  the  child  of  this  union,  Don  Carlos,  should  have  been 
one  of  the  most  despicable  and  unfortunate  specimens  of 
humanity  in  modern  history? 

The  following  pedigree  of  Don  Carlos  shows  his  chances 
of  inheriting  the  inbred  psycho-neurosis. 

Here,  if  there  had  been  many  children  instead  of  one,  I 
should  say  that  in  a rough  way,  extreme  degeneration 

* Motley’s  “ Rise  Dutch  Rep.,”  vol.  i,  p.  142. 


146 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


would  be  likely  to  be  present  in  somewhat  more  than  half 
the  number.  It  is  significant  to  notice  that  the  two  worst 
characters  in  all  modern  royalty,  Don  Carlos  and  Peter 
the  Cruel,  are  also  the  two  who  have  the  worst  pedigrees. 

Don  Carlos,  it  will  be  observed,  though  a great-grand- 
son of  Joanna  “the  Mad  ” and  Philip  “the  Weak,”  has 
almost  exactly  the  same  blood.  Ferdinand  and  Isabella 
extend  right  across  the  chart.  Emanuel  takes  his  origin 
from  a root  almost  identical  with  both  Ferdinand  and 
Isabella,  and  this  root  we  have  seen  is  the  reign  in  which 
the  insanity  must  have  originated.  I do  not  see  how 


John.  = Isabel.  John.  = Isabel. 

Imbecile.  I Insane.  Imbecile.  I Insane. 


Isabella. 

I 

Philip  Joanna. 
Weak.  Insane. 


Charles  V.  ~~ 

Melancholic.  | 


Isabella. 

Emanuel.  = Mary. Emanuel. 

Weak.  | I Weak. 


Isabel.  John  III. 

Weak. 


Philip  II.  = Mary. 

Morose, 

cruel.  j 

Don  Carlos[523], 
Madly  depraved  and  cruel. 


John.  = Isabel. 
Imbecile.  | Insane. 

Isabella. 

Philip.  =rr  Joanna. 

Weak.  | Insane. 

==  Catherine. 


Philip  could  have  planned  it  better  if  he  had  wanted  this 
son  whom  he  really  so  much  despised. 

The  son  by  Philip’s  only  other  productive  marriage 
was  Philip  IIF520].  Here  again  we  have  a close  inbreed- 
ing, though  through  a somewhat  better  route.  Anne  was 
his  own  niece  and  even  more  closely  related  than  a niece, 
as  her  father  was  Philip’s  own  cousin.  The  only  outside 
blood  was  distant,  by  Ladislaus,  King  of  Hungary.  This 
stem  was  presumably  healthy  though  not  distinguished. 
Philip  III  was  a man  of  very  low  mental  caliber  (about 
grade  2).  Hume  says  he  was  not  a fool,  though  Prescott 


Spain 


147 


calls  him  “the  imbecile  grandson  of  Charles  V.”  The 
melancholic  tendency  appeared  in  him,  though  not  to  the 
extent  of  insanity.  Ireland  sums  the  whole  situation  up 
thus:  “Philip  was  a man  of  feeble  and  indolent  character, 
governed  by  worthless  favorites.  The  power  of  Spain 
declined  as  rapidly  as  it  had  risen.”  * 

This  is  the  same  story  over  again  in  the  history  of 
Spain.  We  find  the  condition  of  the  country  reflecting 
the  character  and  strength  of  the  monarch.  Many  times 
through  the  course  of  the  centuries  she  had  been  blessed, 
apparently  through  heredity,  by  great  and  able  rulers, 
and  her  course  had  been  hampered  only  here  and  there 
by  the  presence  of  a weak  one;  but  all  this  from  the  great 
Emperor  Charles’s  day  onward  was  to  be  reversed  by 
the  same  almost  unerring  law  of  descent.  I do  not  mean 
that  a weak  monarch  might  not  exceptionally,  even  in 
those  early  days,  reign  over  a glorious  period.  The  apogee 
of  Portugal  lasted  through  the  reigns  of  two  weak  sover- 
eigns, Emanuel  and  John  III,  though  the  germs  of  decay 
were  clearly  at  work.  Likewise  Spain’s  glory  had  its 
greatest  outward  manifestation  of  splendor  in  the  time 
of  Philip  II,  whose  acts  were  nearly  all  injudicious.  The 
increment  of  one  period  made  itself  felt  in  a later.  Still, 
in  general,  the  countries  prospered  only  under  the  great 
leaders. 

Philip  III[528]  was  not  as  bad  as  Carlos,  nor  was  his 
pedigree  quite  as  hopeless.  The  roots  from  which  he 
sprung  were  practically  all  from  the  weak  John  II,  of  Cas- 
tile, and  Isabella  the  insane.  In  this  he  was  like  Carlos. 
However,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  three  of  his  immediate 
ancestors  were  excellent  characters,  though  not  especially 

* Ireland,  “Blot  upon  the  Brain,”  p.  156. 


148 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


gifted.  These  are  represented  as  such  on  the  chart 
(p.  176).  Ferdinand  F515i  and  Maximilian  II  will  be 
taken  up  under  Austria. 

The  marriage  of  Philip  Hit526]  was  no  more  fortunate. 
His  queen  was  the  daughter  of  Charles[592],  Duke  of 
Styria,  who  was  not  the  possessor  of  great  talents,  and 
was  the  son  of  the  same  Ferdinand  I[515].  Charles’s  wife 
was  of  “obscure”  origin.  Thus  the  neurosis  was  per- 


(See  pedigree, 
page  146.) 

(5)  (2)  Philip  II  [618].z 
Feeble 

X judgment. 

Mean  and 

wicked 

character. 


(See  pedigree, 
page  174.) 

:(4)  (5)  Anne  [694]. 
Amiable 
and  pious. 


(See  pedigree, 
page  ip.) 

Charles  [r>92].=:  Mary,  of  Bavaria. 


Energetic, 
but  narrow- 
minded. 


I 

(2)  (5)  Philip  III  [526]. 
Indolent,  weak- 
minded. 
Tendency  to 
melancholia. 


Excellent  and  much 
praised  princess. 


(4)  (4)  Anne  [627].  (5)  (7)  Maria  [629]. 

Vain  and  Normal  mind, 

rather  foolish.  Eminent 

m.  Louis  XIII.  virtues. 

(See  pedigree,  page  113.) 


Margaret  [606]. 
Presumably  normal  in 
intellect. 

Interested  in  charities 
and  religion. 


(7)  (7)  Charles  [63u]. 
Normal. 

A prince  of 
much  promise. 


Ferdinand  [°31]. 
Brave,  talented. 
His  character -was 
good. 


Elizabeth  [376]  = (5)  (2)  Philip  IV  [**]. 


of  Bourbon. 


X Lazy,  weak, 
licentious. 


(See  pedigree,  page  181.) 

(3)  (5)  Mary  Anne  [ei5] 
of  Austria. 

Petty  and  in- 
triguing. 

Her  private  life 
was  pure. 


(2)  (2)  Balthazar  [C32].  (2)  (6)  MariaTheresa[533]. 
X A degenerate.  Stupid,  but 

virtuous, 
m.  Louis  XIV, 
of  France. 


(3)  (6)  Margaret  [634]. 
Little  intellect. 
Good 
character, 
m.  Leopold  I, 
of  Austria. 


Prosper. 
A de- 
generate. 
Died 
young. 


(i)(5)  Charles  II  [635]. 
An  imbecile. 


petuated,  and  furthermore  the  genius  was  not  maintained. 
However,  very  high  ability  still  cropped  out  in  two  of 
Philip  the  Third’s  many  children.  These  were  Charles 
and  Ferdinand,  already  referred  to;  but  unfortunately  the 
crown  did  not  fall  to  either  of  them,  and  so  we  have  an  acci- 
dental selection  of  the  worst.  The  reign  of  Philip  IV[528i, 
who  became  king,  was  a period  of  great  misfortune. 


Spain 


149 


His  only  good  quality  was  his  love  of  art  and  literature, 
and  perhaps  his  best  bequests  to  the  world  are  the  famous 
portraits  of  himself  and  family  painted  by  the  great 
Velasquez. 

Besides  being  weak  and  foolish,  he  was  “far  inferior 
to  his  predecessor  in  purity  of  life.”  “Spain  might  still 
have  regained  the  lofty  station  she  once  held  in  the  rank 
of  kingdoms  if,  at  the  succession  of  Philip  IV,  a wise  and 
energetic  monarch  had  ascended  the  throne.”  * 

By  his  marriage  with  his  niece,  Mary  Anne[015],  he  suc- 
ceeded in  having  two  degenerates,  Prosper,  who  had  con- 
vulsive fits  from  his  birth  and  died  young,  and  Charles 
II,  who  became  king. 

“Charles  was  the  last  of  the  Spanish- Austria  line,  and 
in  him  all  its  weaknesses  were  combined.  Feeble  in 
mind  and  body,  he  was  grossly  superstitious,  and  so  igno- 
rant that  he  did  not  know  the  names  of  some  of  his  own 
towns  and  provinces.”  f 

By  his  marriage  with  Elizabeth^375],  who  was  a great- 
granddaughter  of  Ferdinand  I,  and  consequently  par- 
tially of  the  same  tainted  stock,  Philip  IV  had  one  licen- 
tious weakling.  This  child,  Don  Balthazar[532],  the  sub- 
ject of  the  famous  Velasquez  recently  acquired  by  the 
Boston  Museum  of  Fine  Arts,  was  so  dissipated  that  he 
brought  himself  to  his  grave  before  he  had  reached  his 
seventeenth  year.J  Another,  Maria  Theresa[533],  who 
married  Louis  XIV,  was  extremely  stupid. 

Charles  II  did  not  have  any  posterity,  and  the  war  of 
the  Spanish  succession  deluged  Europe  with  blood;  but 

* Dunlop,  “Memoirs  of  Spain,”  vol.  i,  p.  23. 

t Young,  “History  of  the  Netherlands,”  p.  61  r. 

J Dunlop,  “Memoirs  of  Spain,”  vol.  i,  p.  378. 


1 5o 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


the  Austrian  house  did  not  reach  its  end  through  any 
sterility  caused  by  inbreeding,  for,  in  spite  of  the  inbreed- 
ing, it  is  noteworthy  that  they  had  large  families,  quite  as 
large  as  elsewhere.  Many  of  the  children  died  in  infancy, 
but  the  wives  were  not  sterile.  It  cannot  be  argued  that 
inbreeding  was  a cause  of  the  large  percentages  of  early 
deaths,  since  we  have  also  to  deal  with  the  question  of 
insanity  and  neuroses.  All  sorts  of  mental  and  physical 
defects,  such  as  are  known  to  be  frequently  found  in  fami- 
lies with  an  insane  diathesis,  may  have  been  the  cause. 

Even  closely  associated  with  the  most  degenerate  rela- 
tions we  find  perfectly  normal  and  oftentimes  very  supe- 
rior characters.  Among  these  we  may  here  mention, 
Eleanor[513],  Ferdinand[515],  Catherine[517],  Mary[519],  Jo- 
anna^201, Don  John[522],  Isabella  Clara[524],  Mary[529], 
Charles[530],  and  Ferdinand[531i,  all  closely  related  to  the 
most  degenerate  members  of  the  family,  against  whom 
they  stand  out  in  sharp  contrast,  illustrating  the  universal 
principle  of  segregation  ( alternative  inheritance)  in  psy- 
chic heredity. 

(c)  Bourbons  in  Spain  and  Italy 

[536]  — [582] 

PHILIP  V TO  THE  PRESENT  DAY 

The  male  or  Hapsburg  line  having  become  extinct  in 
1700,  on  the  death  of  Charles  II,  the  Bourbons  came  upon 
the  Spanish  throne.  This  group  may  be  subdivided  into 
four  smaller  groups: 

1.  Primogeniture  line  of  Spain. 

2.  Children  of  Philip,  Duke  of  Parma. 

3.  Male  line  in  the  Two  Sicilies. 

4.  The  Carlists. 


CHARLES  II  OF  SPAIN  [535]. 


DON  FERDINAND  [531], 
Son  of  Philip  III. 


FERDINAND  VI  OF  SPAIN  l™], 


PHILIP  OF  PARMA  [™], 
Son  of  Philip  V of  Spain. 


FERDINAND  VII  OF  SPAIN [“!]. 


MARIA  CHRISTINA  [568], 
Queen  of  Spain. 


* SVT  * 


Spain 


ISI 

I shall  start  with  Philip  V,  and  include  in  the  group 
with  him  all  his  ancestors  to  the  third  or  great-grand- 
parent degree.  This  supplies  87J  per  cent  of  influence, 
according  to  Galton’s  law.  Next  all  the  children  of 
Philip  V will  be  included,  as  well  as  all  their  ancestors  to 
the  third  degree.  Then  following  down  the  line  that  cor- 
responds to  the  throne,  I shall  treat  of  each  “ fraternity  ” 
in  turn  until  the  present  Alfonso  XIII  is  reached.  After 
this  the  other  male  lines  (2-4)  will  be  taken  up.  The 
daughters  are  also  included,  but  not  their  children,  as 
these  are  considered  under  the  male  lines  in  other  coun- 
tries — Austria,  France,  Portugal,  etc.  There  are  forty- 
seven  persons  in  this  group  who  require  tracing.  As 
each  has  fourteen  ancestors  in  the  third  degree  (two 
parents,  four  grandparents,  eight  great-grandparents),  the 
total  number  of  persons  concerned  is  several  hundred. 
All  are  of  value,  even  the  remote  edges,  because  any  strik- 
ing trait,  insanity,  genius,  or  moral  depravity  exhibited  in 
a certain  ancestor,  should  reappear  further  down;  if  not 
in  some  branch  represented  in  its  own  country,  then  per- 
haps here  in  Spain.  There  are  many  of  these  second- 
and  third-degree  ancestors  who  have  the  worst  possible 
epithets  bestowed  upon  them,  such  as  the  type  of  Louis 
XV,  of  France;  but  there  are  only  two  out  of  several  hun- 
dred who  have  ever  been  called  great,  or  who  could  be 
ranked  with  the  geniuses  of  a grade  as  high  as  (9). 

These  are  Maria  Theresa,  of  Austria,  and  her  grand- 
son, the  celebrated  Archduke  Charles,  who  won  distinc- 
tion in  his  battles  against  Napoleon.  Maria  Theresa 
comes  in  this  group  no  nearer  than  a grandparent  and 
then  only  twice,  and  as  a great-grandparent  only  three 
times.  In  none  of  the  Spanish  descendants  does  her 


if1  Heredity  in  Royalty 

genius  reappear,  though  in  Austria,  in  generations  which 
immediately  follow  her,  one  sees  higher  marks  for  intel- 
lect. The  Archduke  Charles  enters  this  group  merely  as 
a grandfather  of  the  present  Queen  Dowager  of  Spain, 
who  is  no  unworthy  descendant.  The  tracing  of  this 
higher  mental  strain,  its  origin  and  its  reappearance,  is 
to  be  found  under  Austria. 

So  with  regard  to  genius,  the  results  are  conclusive. 
The  other  characters  are  nearly  all  between  (i)  and  (6), 
the  great  majority  being  below  mediocrity,  illustrating  the 
intellect  of  the  Bourbons,  which,  as  some  one  has  said, 
never  rose  above  cunning.  Although  this  statement  is 
not  absolutely  true,  there  seems  to  be  a certain  charac- 
teristic type  of  mind  most  often  seen,  — low  craftiness  for 
intrigue,  combined  with  laziness,  debauchery,  tyranny, 
and  often  cowardice.  This  last  is  the  slur  we  can  least 
frequently  bring  against  royalty.  Whatever  they  were, 
they  were  nearly  always  brave. 

The  mental  qualities  are,  for  the  most  part,  below  the 
mean,  while  the  moral  qualities  fall  as  far  below  the  aver- 
age as  in  any  of  the  worst  regions  of  older  times;  as  bad 
as  the  Romanoffs  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen- 
turies. Charts  dealing  with  this  group  show  just  how, 
if  heredity  be  a great  force,  Spain  was  brought  to  her 
unfortunate  fate,  how  nearly  impossible  it  was  that  she 
should  have  escaped  it. 

Another  important  point  to  notice  is  the  strong  varia- 
tion in  the  moral  qualities.  It  is  very  easy  to  separate 
the  sheep  from  the  goats.  There  are  only  a few  about 
whom  we  should  hesitate  to  say  whether  they  were  good 
or  bad.  I have  attempted  to  so  classify  them  in  the 
following  list.  There  are  thirty-four  persons  in  this  list, 


Spain 


*53 


of  whom  fourteen  were  either  cruel  or  dissolute  or  both. 
These  have  the  mark  x against  them.  There  are  at 
least  seven  either  insane  or  showing  the  neurosis  in  a 
marked  degree.  These  have  the  mark  * applied  to  them. 
This  leaves  only  sixteen  free.  Of  these,  six  are  known 
to  have  been  indolent  almost  to  point  of  disease.  Thus, 
only  about  ten  in  the  thirty-four  were  normal.  This  is 
a remarkably  small  ratio  of  normal,  and  is  less  than 
found  in  any  other  country. 

*Philip  VC386]. 

^Ferdinand  Vi!536!. 

XLouis,  1707-1724. 

Charles  Hit537!. 

Philip,  Duke  of  Parma!539!. 

Marie  Anne!538!. 

Charles  IV!545!. 

X*Ferdinand  I,  Two  Sicilies!546!. 

X*Philip,  imbecile  son  of  Charles  III. 

Maria  Louisa,  wife  of  Leopold  II,  of  Austria. 

X*Ferdinand  VlF551!. 

Carlos,  first  pretended552!. 

Isabella!553!. 

XCarlotta,  Queen  of  Portugal!549!. 

Francis  de  Paula!554!. 

Xlsabella  II  (Queen)!555!. 

Maria  Louisa,  Montpensier!556!. 

Alfonso  XII. 

XFerdinand,  D.  of  Parma!558!. 

XMaria  Louisa!559!. 

Elizabeth!557!. 

XFrancis  I,  Two  Sicilies!561!. 

Antonia!564!. 

XFerdinand  II  (“Bomba”)!560!. 

XChristina!568!. 

Carlotta,  wife  of  Francis  de  Paula!567!. 


1 54 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


XFrancis  II,  Two  Sicilies. 

Don  Carlos  (VI)!578b 
*Johnl579l. 

XDon  Carlos  (VII) t581D 
Alfonso!582!. 

*Elvira,  dau.  of  !581b 

XHenry,  1823-1870. 

Francis  d’Assis,  b.  1822. 

It  will  be  shown  that  selection  of  the  worst  in  each 
generation  will  account  for  this  unfortunate  condition, 
without  other  causes  being  necessarily  introduced.  We 
get  some  idea  here  of  the  extent  to  which  a degradation 
can  be  carried,  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  it  may  be 
perpetuated  for  a great  number  of  generations,  even 
when  breeding  in.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  in- 
breeding  has  led  to  sterility,  as  is  usually  contended  by 
historians  and  students  of  the  subject.  Although  the 
male  line  byway  of  the  oldest  sons  ceased,  once  at  Charles 
II,  and  again  at  Ferdinand  VII,  nearly  every  marriage 
was  prolific  of  many  children,  even  among  the  closest 
blood  relations;  and  one  has  but  to  glance  at  the  “Al- 
manach  de  Gotha  ” for  the  current  year  to  see  the  num- 
ber of  descendants  that  are  being  born  to  the  closely 
interrelated  families  of  Hapsburg,  Bourbon,  and  Orleans. 

1.  The  Line  of  Primogeniture  in  Spain 

[536]  — [556] 

After  the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession  the  throne  of 
Spain  passed  to  the  house  of  Bourbon,  in  the  person  of 
Philip  V[386],  a grandson  of  Louis  XIV,  of  France,  and  a 
weak  descendant  of  a mediocre  breed.  Although  Spain 
changed  the  name,  she  did  not  change  the  blood  nor  the 


Chart  of  Modern  Spain.  Showing  the  perpetuation  of  degeneration  by  selection. 


X signifies  a grade  below  (4)  for  virtues. 


(3)  (2)  Louis  XV  [3 
X Weak  and 
licentious. 


(7)  (4)  Elizabeth  Famese. 
Ambirious  and 
intriguing. 


(2)  (5)  Philip  V [f86]. 

W eak  and  indolent. 
Became  insane. 


=(6)  (8)  Maria,  of  Savoy. 
Good  character. 


(5)  (3)  Elizabeth  [389].=(3)  (4)  Philip  [539]. 
X Bad  traits.  Weak. 


(4)  (5)  Louis  [^°J. 
Normal. 


Maria  [53{ 
Normal. 


(6)  (6)  Charles  III  [537].  (5)  (7)  Ferdinand  VI  [536J.  Louis. 

Good  normal  Called  “theWise.”  Foolish  and  vicious, 

character.  Became  insane.  Died  young. 


(6)  (1)  Maria  Louisa  [559].  = (3)  (6)  Charles  IV  [545]. 


An  artful  intriguer. 
Extremely 
licentious. 


Weak  and  ex- 
tremely indolent. 
Virtuous. 


(1)  (1)  Philip  f545].  (2)  (6)  Marie  Louise  [343J.  (3)  (3)  Ferdinand  [^6]. 

X Imbecile.  Stupid,  but  X Very  weak  mind. 

virtuous  and  Indolent  and 

amiable.  heartless. 


(6)  (2)  Carlotta  [549]. 

X Violent, ambitious, 
passionate, 
dissolute. 


(6)  (5)  Francisca[731].  = (3)  (7)  Carlos  [552]. 


(2)  (4)  Francis  de  Paula  [554]. 

1 

Isabella  [°53] . 

Extremely  weak 

Negative 

= (6)  (3)  X [567]- 

Dau.  of  [681]. 

character. 

Ambitious 
and  haughty. 
An  intriguer. 


Many  virtues, 
but  inferior 
capacity. 


(4)  (?)  Carlos  [578]. 
Little 
capacity. 


(3)  (4)  John  [579]. 
Weak. 
Eccentric. 


(2)  (3)  Ferdinand  VII  [551].  : 
X Extremely  indolent, 
incompetent, 
and  dissolute. 


(3)  (2)  Francis  I [5G1]  of  Sicily. 
X Most  bigoted, 

cowardly,  and  dissolute. 
A tyrant. 


(6)  (2)  Maria  Christina  [568]. 
X Ambitious, 

intriguing,  and  very 
dissolute. 


(3)  (4)  Francis  d’Assis.  = 
Extremely  weak. 
Brother  of  (6)  (3)  X 
Henry,  violent  in 
the  extreme. 


(5)  (2)  Isabella  II  [555 
X Quarrelsome 
and  dissolute. 


(4)  (7)  Louise  [556]. 
Normal,  with 
many  virtues. 


(5)  (2)  Ferdinand  II, 
X “Bomba”  [569]. 
Extremely 
brutal,  tyran- 
nical, and 
avaricious. 


Spain 


' 155 


characteristics  of  her  sovereigns.  The  lines  of  descent 
by  which  the  insanity  of  Joanna  the  Mad  and  weaknesses 
of  Philip  the  Handsome  were  passed  along  by  a con- 
tinuous chain  of  intermarriages,  may  be  traced  from  gen- 
eration to  generation,  and  the  line  of  greatest  weakness 
corresponds  to  the  region  of  closest  intermarriages.  Philip 
VC380]  inherited  more  or  less  of  the  psycho-neurosis  from 
all  quarters,  although  remote.  This,  by  chance  reversion, 
appeared  in  him,  in  full  force,  and  so  could  then  be 
again  transmitted  in  equal  force  (foregoing  chart).  It 
is  not  surprising  that  it  reappeared,  in  the  offspring 
of  his  marriage  with  Maria  (on  the  right),  as  she 
derived  her  descent  from  almost  the  same  stock.  Both 
the  sons  showed  the  taint.  One  was  good  and  “Wise,” 
one  wras  foolish  and  vicious,  but  unfortunately  the 
“Wise”  one,  Ferdinand  VI[530],  became  insane.  Both 
are  easily  reconciled  to  heredity.  Ferdinand  VI  took 
his  character  and  mind  from  his  mother,  but  happened 
to  get  more  than  an  average  share  of  the  family 
psychosis.  Louis  was  merely  another  bad  specimen  of 
Bourbon  degeneration,  not  resembling  very  closely  either 
parent. 

By  the  marriage  with  Elizabeth  Farnese  (ancestry  nor- 
mal), Philip  V had,  as  an  heir,  Charles  III,  of  Spain,  who 
was  the  best  of  the  more  modern  sovereigns  of  that  coun- 
try — in  fact,  the  only  normal  one  since  before  the  days 
of  the  Emperor  Charles  V,  now  seven  generations  in  the 
background.  Not  that  Charles  III  inherited  any  of  the 
ancient  genius,  for  that  had  gone,  never  to  appear  again. 
He  was,  however,  “an  enlightened,  generous,  and  just  king 
and  a noble  and  magnanimous  man,”  * and  “ possessed 

* Hume,  “Spain,  Greatness  and  Decay.” 


156  Heredity  in  Royalty 

abilities  as  a monarch,  and  virtues  as  a private  citizen,” 
“ . . . was  a popular  sovereign  and  a great  economist 
of  time,  scrupulously  methodical  in  all  his  operations.”  * 
He  was  not  remarkable  in  any  way,  except  that  he  was 
a good  king  of  Spain.  If  all  of  the  nine  children  and  grand- 
children of  Philip  V and  Elizabeth  Farnese  had  been 
much  like  Charles  III,  or,  in  other  words,  normal,  I should 
consider  that  here  would  be  a good  illustration  of  the 
extreme  unreliability  of  heredity  in  individual  instances. 
But  the  mental  degeneration  was  perpetuated,  to  the 
following  extent.  One  of  the  three  children,  Philip  of 
Parma[539],  turned  out  a weak  but  well-meaning  prince, 
four  of  the  seven  grandchildren  were  very  poor  charac- 
ters, and  still  another  grandchild,  Maria,  Queen  of  Por- 
tugal, became  insane.  Spain  was  fortunate  in  getting 
Charles  III  instead  of  his  brother  Philip,  who  fell  to  the 
lot  of  Parma.  He  was  decidedly  superior  to  Philip,  who 
was  debauched  and  licentious,  and  unsuccessful  in  his 
political  affairs.  Before  coming  to  the  throne  of  Spain, 
Charles  III  spent  a number  of  years  at  the  head  of 
affairs  in  Naples,  which  land  also  profited  by  his  just 
administration,  as  much  as  she  subsequently  suffered 
under  the  later  rulers,  Ferdinand  IV[546i,  “Bomba,”  and 
Francis  I. 

Charles  Hit537]  married  Amelia,  of  Saxony.  She  died 
young,  and  appears  to  have  been  a rather  negative  char- 
acter, except  that  she  is  spoken  of  as  having  an  unreli- 
able temper.f  Her  father  was  Augustus  II,  a man  of 
“inferior  capacity  and  energy.”  Her  mother  was  Maria 


* Rose’s  “Biog.  Diet.” 
f Armstrong,  “Elizabeth  Farnese,”  p.  395. 


Spain  157 

Josepha,  of  Austria18241,  “ very  plain  and  destitute  of  ac- 
complishments.” * 

Her  maternal  grandfather  was  Joseph  I,  of  Austria,  an 
able  and  ambitious  sovereign,  whose  queen  was  slightly 
above  mediocrity  and  not  peculiar.  Thus,  this  union 
may  be  considered  a fair  average  one,  with  only  a sprink- 
ling of  insanity,  through  the  ancestry  of  Joseph  I,  of  Aus- 
tria. However,  it  turned  out  disastrously,  apparently 
through  chance;  the  elder  sons,  taking  from  the  father’s 
side,  being  the  ones  to  exhibit  most  of  the  family  weak- 
nesses. Out  of  a large  number  of  children  (seven  reached 
adult  years),  the  psychosis  appeared  in  Philip15441,  Ferdi- 
nand[546],  and  Charles15451.  Philip  was  an  imbecile,  and 
fortunately  died  young,  but  both  Ferdinand  and  Charles 
became  the  progenitors  of  the  future  kings  and  queens 
of  Spain. 

Ferdinand[546],  who  became  IV  of  Naples,  was  a rude, 
uncultivated  boor,  in  whom  environment  is  said  to  have 
played  a part.  He  was  characterized  as  “puerile.” 
Charles,  who  became  Charles  IV,  of  Spain,  was  not  quite 
so  hopeless,  having  some  intelligence  and  well-meaning 
notions;  but  he  was  absolutely  useless  as  a king;  his  neu- 
rosis took  the  form  of  extreme  languor;  and  being  easily 
ruled,  he  was  completely  under  the  control  of  his  unscru- 
pulous wife. 

The  only  one  of  the  four  children  of  Charles  III,  here 
treated  of,  who  was  normal,  was  the  mild  and  good  Maria 
Louisa15431,  who  was  wedded  to  Leopold  II,  of  Austria. 
Another  Maria  Louisa[559],  the  queen  of  Charles  IV[545], 
just  referred  to,  was  his  own  cousin,  by  the  weaker  or 
paternal  side,  besides  bringing  in  the  worst  of  the  Bour- 

* “Memoirs  Margravine  of  Bareith,”  vol.  i,  p.  118. 


i58 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


bon  moral  depravity  from  her  mother  and  mother’s 
family.  If  the  makers  of  royal  marriages  had  wished  to 
perpetuate  the  degeneracy,  they  could  not  have  done 
better;  and  so  Spain  was  treated  to  such  sovereigns  as 
Ferdinand  VII[551],  the  weak  and  incompetent  Carlists, 
and  the  intriguing  princesses  and  consumptive  princes, 
all  of  whom  did  what  they  could  to  further  the  downfall 
of  their  country. 

Maria  Louisa15591  was  an  able  woman  in  the  way  of 
management  and  intrigue,  but  her  moral  character  was 
about  as  black  as  any  princess  in  modern  history.  We 
can  discuss  five  of  her  children. 

Ferdinand  VII  [5511,  who  came  to  the  throne,  well  rep- 
resented his  father  in  weakness,  and  mother  in  wicked- 
ness. His  first  act  was  to  reestablish  the  Inquisition. 
“He  was  the  worst  of  the  Bourbon  kings,  . . . had  no 
conception  of  the  duties  of  a ruler.  His  public  conduct 
was  regulated  by  pride  and  superstition,  and  his  private 
life  was  stained  by  the  grossest  sensual  indulgence.”  * 
From  his  childhood  he  had  a tendency  to  melancholia, 
which  increased  as  years  went  on.  With  regard  to  his 
trusting  to  unworthy  favorites,  he  seemed  to  have  derived 
no  advantages  from  experience,  to  have  learned  nothing 
in  the  school  of  adversity.  In  early  life,  he  himself  had 
been  the  victim  of  a favorite,  in  Godoy  the  “Prince  of 
Peace.”  According  to  Hubbard,  it  is  entirely  unjust  to 
accuse  the  queen,  Maria  Louisa,  and  the  “Prince  of 
Peace”  with  having  tried  to  oppose  his  intellectual  and 
moral  education.  On  the  other  hand,  everything  was 
done  to  give  him  good  instruction,  that  he  might  be 
competent  to  direct  the  affairs  of  state.f 

* “Encyclop.  Brit.,”  9th  ed.,  article  Spain. 

f “Hist.  Contemp.  de  l’Espagne,”  tome  i,  p.  241. 


FAMILY  OF  CHARLES  IV  OF  SPAIN [54=],  AND[6™]. 


FERDINAND  IV  OF  NAPLES,  AND  / OF  THE 
TWO  SICILIES  I"40]. 


ISABELLA  [5ra], 

Daughter  of  Charles  IV  of  Spain. 


FRANCIS  I OF  THE  TWO  SICILIES[M1]. 


MARIA  THERESA pG0], 
Daughter  of  Ferdinand  IV  of  Naples. 


MARIE  AMELIA  [563], 
Queen  of  Louis  Philippe. 


DON  CARLOS [=52], 
Son  of  Charles  IV. 


FERDINAND  II  OF  THE  TWO  SICILIES. 
‘•BOMBA  ”[569]. 


Spain 


*59 


Don  Carlos[552],  his  younger  brother,  was  too  feeble  and 
irresolute  to  take  advantage  of  the  times  during  the  Carl- 
ist  uprising  and  gain  control  of  affairs.  During  all  the 
wars  he  was  merely  a figurehead,  both  in  the  military 
and  political  decisions.  Don  Carlos  possessed,  however, 
what  Ferdinand  lacked,  a high  moral  purpose  and  sense 
of  duty.  He  was  also  literary  and  religious  in  his  tastes, 
and  his  private  life  was  above  reproach.  His  sister,  Car- 
lotta[549],  who  became  queen  of  John  VI,  of  Portugal,  was 
the  child  who  showed  the  abilities  of  Maria  Louisa,  their 
mother.  She  repeated  her  mother  almost  exactly.  “Be- 
fore the  entry  of  the  French  in  Portugal,  there  were 
domestic  troubles  between  Carlotta  and  her  husband, 
when  she  passed  much  of  her  time  in  religious  seclusion 
in  the  cloister  of  Mafra.  According  to  various  accounts, 
her  conduct  did  not  improve  on  her  arrival  in  the  Brazils. 
The  author  of  the  ‘Civil  War  in  Portugal,’  says:  ‘She 
was  a woman  of  violent  spirit  entering  upon  party  politics, 
with  the  ambitious  views  of  seizing  the  reins  of  govern- 
ment. To  gain  her  ends  she  fearlessly  hazarded  her  own 
life  and  those  of  her  adherents.  When  in  Rio  de  Janeiro 
she  showed  her  daring  and  violent  spirit  by  firing  a pistol 
at  Lobato,  the  king’s  favorite.  . . . She  was  an  accom- 
plished woman.  Her  conversation  was  full  of  wit  and 
spirit.’  ” * Her  private  life  was  as  dissolute  as  that  of 
her  mother. 

Her  sister,  Isabella[553],  who  married  Francis  I,  of  the 
Two  Sicilies,  was,  I judge,  a negative  person,  as  I have 
found  no  mention  of  her  character  or  achievements.  The 
other  brother,  Francis  de  Paula[554],  was  probably  not  a 
son  of  Charles  IV  at  all,  being  born  after  the  queen’s  inti- 

* Bollaert,  “Wars  of  Portugal  and  Spain,”  vol.  i,  p.  58. 


160  Heredity  in  Royalty 

macy  with  Godoy.  “The  infant  Don  Francis  bore  not 
the  slightest  resemblance  to  his  brothers,  who  were  strik- 
ingly alike.  He  was  a person  of  very  inferior  gifts,  . . . 
a poor  little  specimen  of  royalty,  both  physically  and 
mentally.”  * “ In  a moment  of  great  excitement,  Maria 

Louise  acknowledged  Godoy  to  be  his  father,  and  as  she 
intrigued  to  have  the  elder  brothers  set  aside  and  to 
secure  him  the  succession,  doubt  may  be  considered  to 
exist  concerning  his  legitimacy.  The  liberal  party  looked 
to  Francis,  and  he  might  have  played  a great  role,  if  he 
had  showed  himself  endowed  with  moral  and  intellectual 
qualities.”  f This  doubt  of  legitimacy  does  not  apply  in 
the  case  of  the  other  children,  as  they  were  born  before 
the  queen’s  intimacy  with  Godoy. 

Thus  Carlos[552]  was,  like  his  father,  good,  but  feeble. 
Carlotta[549],  bright,  but  wicked,  like  her  mother.  Isa- 
bella was  negative,  and  Ferdinand[55b  was  both  feeble 
and  bad.  This  strong  variation  in  the  children  corre- 
sponds with  the  variation  in  the  pedigree. 

Ferdinand  does  not  clearly  repeat  any  near  ancestor, 
but  is  easily  explained  as  a combination  of  both  his 
parents  plus  the  ancient  family  melancholia.  Francis^5541, 
feeble  morally  and  mentally,  does  not  resemble  either 
parent  alone,  but  is  an  exhibition  of  heredity,  because 
either  nothing  at  all  in  mind,  or  that  of  a clever  intriguer 
is  all  that  is  to  be  expected  at  this  point,  as  the  parentage 
of  Godoy  was  extremely  “obscure.” 

The  next  prolific  royal  marriage,  that  of  Ferdinand 
VIF551],  should  turn  out  no  better  and  perpetuate  the 
same  traits.  He  married  four  times.  The  queen  by 

* Hume,  “ Modern  Spain,”  pp.  269,  391. 

t Latimer,  “ Spain  in  the  XIX  Century,”  p.  15. 


Spain  161 

whom  he  had  children  was  Maria  Christina^068],  his  own 
niece  — her  mother  was  his  sister  Isabella[3o3],  wife  of 
Francis  I,  of  the  Two  Sicilies^561].  We  have  seen  how 
full  of  bad  spots  the  stock  of  Isabella^53]  was.  Francis 
f[561]  was  no  better,  being  one  of  the  worst  of  Italy’s 
tyrants,  and  the  son  of  two  who  were  quite  as  undesir- 
able. Maria  Christinat568]  was  a granddaughter  of  Maria 
Louisat55®1,  and  was  just  about  like  her.  The  chart 
shows  that  unless  she  took  after  her  mother,  who  was  a 
nobody,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  she  could  not  help 
having  a combination  of  extremely  vicious  traits;  unless 
a rare  chance  should  bring  out  some  of  the  great-grand- 
parents. All  four  of  her  grandparents,  as  well  as  her 
father,  were  either  verging  on  imbecility  or  were  excep- 
tionally low  in  their  moral  natures. 

Christina[568]  did  all  that  could  be  expected  of  her. 
Her  entire  life  was  devoted  either  to  political  mischief  or 
debauchery,  and  one  needs  only  to  look  in  the  first  bio- 
graphical dictionary  to  see  how  absolutely  her  life  is 
condemned. 

Like  Maria  Louisa[559],  she  possessed  plenty  of  ambi- 
tion such  as  it  was ; and  always  scheming,  her  very  talents 
were  worse  than  none,  in  her  pernicious  influences  on 
the  politics  of  Spain.  “ Ferdinand  VII  was  as  much 
under  his  wife’s  control  as  his  father  had  been  before 
him,  and  the  life  of  that  woman,  like  the  other,  was  a 
scandal  and  a disgrace.” 

Ferdinand  VII[531]  had  two  daughters,  and  nothing 
could  be  greater  than  the  contrast  between  them.  Each 
can  be  partially,  at  any  rate,  explained  by  their  envi- 
ronment. Each  can  be  wholly  explained  by  heredity. 
The  elder,  Isabella  lit555],  was  her  mother  over  again. 


162 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Isabella  II,  of  Spain,  had  a career  so  notorious  and  dis- 
solute that  the  memory  of  it  has  not  entirely  gone  from 
the  minds  of  many  who  are  alive  to-day.  She  too,  like 
her  predecessors,  possessed  both  wit  and  spirit,  and  her 
active  political  interests  made  it  so  much  the  worse  for 
her  country.  Her  sister,  Maria  Louise!556!,  on  the  con- 
trary, was  an  amiable  and  virtuous  woman,  a good  wife 
and  mother,  and  in  her  domestic,  quiet  life,  showed  the. 
greatest  contrast  to  Isabella.  Maria  was  very  happily 
married  to  the  Duke  of  Montpensier,  an  artistic,  noble- 
minded  son  of  Louis  Philippe;  and  although  her  position 
was  not  an  enviable  one,  nor  her  life  altogether  happy, 
her  husband’s  influence  may  have  been  beneficial  in  the 
formation  of  her  character. 

Isabella  is  all  that  we  should  expect  from  heredity. 
Maria  Louisa  is  the  unexpected.  A large  number  of 
children  like  herself  — such  as  we  have  in  the  children 
of  Maria  Theresa[026!,  of  Austria  — would  certainly  argue 
against  heredity.  One  alone,  as  seen  here,  cannot,  as 
she  may  have  taken  her  characteristics  from  her  grand- 
mother, Maria  Isabella1553!,  or  from  some  more  remote 
ancestors.  It  is  only  where  there  are  a large  number  of 
verified  children  in  the  family,  that  reliable  conclusions 
can  be  drawn  relative  to  the  degree  of  influence  that  can 
be  placed  on  heredity  vs.  environment.  However,  those 
who  believe  that  character  is  formed  young,  from  sur- 
roundings, could  not  consider  that  Maria  Louisa  was  a 
case  in  point. 

As  stated  before,  no  attempt  will  be  made  to  discuss 
each  case,  and  fathom  the  intricate  associations  between 
inherited  and  acquired  traits.  It  is  too  difficult.  At- 
tempt alone  is  made  to  test  the  reliability  of  heredity  in 


Spain  163 

a large  number  of  cases  and  to  determine  the  error  or 
fault  in  it  alone. 

The  next  marriage,  that  of  Isabella  II  and  her  cousin 
Francis  d’Assis,  was  equally  bad,  since  Francis  was  a 
degenerate  little  fool,  and  thought  incapable  of  procrea- 
tion. Isabella  II  had  fourteen  children,  all  allowed  by 
law  as  legitimate,  but  the  nature  of  her  private  life  was 
such  that  they  are  of  little  use  for  scientific  purposes, 
and  we  shall  discuss  only  her  son  Alfonso  XII,  for  the 
sake  of  closing  the  dynasty  of  Spain  and  bringing  it  up 
to  the  present  day.  Alfonso  XII  was  consumptive,  but 
otherwise  normal,  a fairly  good  and  sensible  man,  though 
not  brilliant.  He  died  so  young  that  we  cannot  be  sure 
of  his  mental  traits;  still,  he  bade  fair  not  to  resemble  his 
mother.  The  pictures  of  Alfonso  XII  show  an  entirely 
different  type  of  face  from  the  Hapsburg-Bourbon,  and 
lends  force  to  the  suspicion  that  outside  blood  is  there. 
His  first  wife,  Mercedes,  was  a model  of  feminine  graces; 
and  his  second  wife,  the  present  regent,  has  a character 
too  well  known  for  nobility  and  virtue  to  need  any  com- 
ment here.  Thus,  Alfonso  XIII,  the  present  king,  may  be 
watched  with  considerable  interest.  With  father  and 
mother  both  normal,  though  father  consumptive,  two 
grandfathers  weak  and  eccentric,  one  of  whom  was  phy- 
sically degenerate  (or  possibly  one  of  them,  some  un- 
known subject  of  Isabella’s),  one  grandmother,  Eliza- 
beth, of  Austria,  excellent,  and  a third  and  fourth  gen- 
eration pedigree,  full  of  vices  and  depravities,  to  possibly 
revert  to,  and  with  one  great-grandparent,  Charles  of 
Austria,  one  of  the  noblest  and  most  brilliant  princes 
that  ever  lived,  and  a bringing  up  of  the  most  careful 
sort,  it  is  indeed  difficult  to  predict  what  the  future  king 
of  Spain  will  be  like. 


164 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


2.  Children  of  Philip [539J  of  ParmaP 57]  [559] 

Here,  two  are  bad,  and  one  is  good ; two  are  bright  and 
one  stupid.  The  variation  is  what  the  pedigree  calls  for, 
though  the  mental  average  is  somewhat  above  the  ex- 
pected. 

3.  The  Male  Line  in  the  Two  Sicilies [560]-[577l 

The  third  son  of  Charles  III,  of  Spain,  became,  on  his 
father’s  ascension  to  the  throne  of  that  country,  Ferdi- 
nand I,  of  the  Two  Sicilies[546].  He  was  called  an  “im- 
becile king,”  being  weak  in  both  mind  and  moral  char- 
acter. Ferdinand  has  already  been  treated  of  under 
Spain,  in  connection  with  his  brothers  and  sister. 

His  queen,  Caroline[035],  was  a daughter  of  Francis  I, 
of  Austria,  and  the  famous  Maria  Theresa.  Caroline 
was  herself  a remarkable  woman,  and  had  a great  and 
pernicious  influence  on  the  times.  As  her  traits  and  life 
will  be  discussed  under  Austria,  it  is  only  necessary  to 
state  that  her  mind  was  brilliant,  and  her  character  (as 
summed  up  in  Lippincott’s  “Biog.  Dictionary”)  was 
that  of  a princess  of  “great  ambition,  cruelty,  and  en- 
ergy.” According  to  Galton,  the  children  of  her  mar- 
riage would  receive,  as  regards  their  maternal  side,  half 
of  their  influence  from  her,  and  half  from  all  her  ances- 
tors. As  the  ancestors  have  a comparatively  clean  record 
on  the  moral  side,  this  union  may  be  considered  half 
good,  and  half  bad ; while  on  the  intellectual,  it  should  be 
considered  good,  though  not  extremely  so,  as  may  be  seen 
from  the  charts  of  Spain  and  Austria. 

The  next  generation  can  be  seen  to  give  us  an  expected 
result.  Francis  It561],  weak  and  tyrannical,  Antonia[504], 


Spain 


165 


getting  the  brains  as  well  as  virtue  from  the  strength  of 
her  four  good  grandparents,  and  having  “a  lofty,  vigorous 
mind,  and  good  character.”  * f She  had  no  children. 
Marie  Amelia^563],  another  daughter,  became  the  queen 
of  Louis  Philippe,  and  is  everywhere  spoken  of  with 
veneration  and  respect.  Two  other  adult  children  were 
“obscure.” 

It  can  be  seen  that  Francis  I[561]  married  Isabella[553],  a 
daughter  of  Charles  IV,  of  Spain,  and,  therefore,  his  first 
cousin.  Children  of  this  marriage  would  have  a bad 
father  and  all  their  grandparents  cast  in  the  same  mold. 
Six  of  the  eight  great-grandparents  would  be  good,  though 
this,  however,  is  supposed  to  have  small  influence  (about 
10  per  cent).  So  the  outlook  may  be  considered  un- 
promising, to  say  the  least.  (See  chart  opp.  p.  154.) 

Ferdinand  IP369],  the  eldest  son,  had  a most  notorious 
career.  He  succeeded  his  father  to  the  throne  of  the 
Two  Sicilies  in  1830.  The  blame  which  in  his  first 
edict  he  cast  on  his  predecessors,  raised  the  hope  that  he 
was  about  to  make  sincere  efforts  to  heal  the  wounds 
of  his  country,  but  this  illusion  did  not  last  long.  A 
stranger  to  pleasures  in  the  ordinary  sense,  his  only 
thoughts  were  for  money  and  power.  The  saintly  queen, 
Christine,  of  Savoy,  whom  he  had  married  in  1832,  died 
in  1836,  a victim  of  his  brutalities.  His  atrocities  were 
seen  on  every  side;  and  during  the  Italian  wars,  the 
horrible  bombardment  of  Messina  gained  for  him  the 
name  of  King  “Bomba,”  by  which  he  is  generally 
known  4 

* Hubbard,  vol.  i,  p.  244. 

t Busk,  “Spain  and  Portugal,”  p.  252. 

X Grande  Encyclop. 


1 66 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


His  sister,  the  notorious  Maria  Christina,  of  Spain[568i, 
has  already  been  described.  Another  daughter  of  Fran- 
cis B561i,  Louise  Carlotta,  married  Francis  de  Paula[554h 
She  was  an  overbearing,  ambitious,  intriguing  princess, 
but  not  as  bad  a character  as  her  sister  Christina[568]. 
Her  sister  Caroline,  however,  ranks  as  normal,  so  here 
again  we  see  contrasts  agreeing  with  the  pedigree.  It 
may  be  noted,  that  the  extreme  languor  and  weaknesses 
which  characterized  the  children  of  Charles  IV,  here  give 
place  to  arrogance,  haughtiness,  and  energy,  correspond- 
ing to  the  Austrian  blood,  which  was  practically  absent 
in  the  primogeniture  line  of  Spain  at  this  period. 

The  notorious  “Bomba”[569]  married  Christina,  of 
Savoy.  She  was  venerated  by  her  subjects  and  called 
“the  Saint.”  As  we  have  only  one  child  of  theirs  to  dis- 
cuss, it  is  not  worth  while  entering  into  particulars,  for 
here  either  the  worst  characters  or  the  best  would  fill 
the  requirements  of  heredity.  This  son,  like  all  others  in 
Bourbon  Spain,  confirms  the  theory  of  non-blends  when 
considering  mental  traits.  He  received  the  title  of  Fran- 
cis II,  and  was  “weak-minded,  ignorant,  and  bigoted.” 
He  was  almost  like  his  father,  except  that  his  mind  was 
somewhat  inferior.*  The  others  in  the  latest  generations 
of  the  family  are  too  recent  and  unimportant  to  furnish 
enough  authenticated  information  for  use  in  this  study. 
It  is  sufficient  to  state,  that  though  there  are  many  of 
them,  none  have  shown  intellectual  eminence,  nor  should 
we  expect  it,  the  chart  giving  no  prophecy  in  this  direction. 

4.  The  Carlists.  ( Pretenders )£578]-[582] 

These  Carlist  pretenders  came  into  existence  in  the 
following  way:  Through  the  intrigues  of  Marie  Christina, 

* Orsi,  “ Modern  Italy.” 


Spain 


i6j 


and  the  Pragmatic  Sanction  of  Ferdinand  VII,  the  old 
Salic  law,  which  insured  the  inheritance  to  males  alone, 
was  set  aside  in  1832,  in  order  that  the  king’s  daughter, 
Isabella,  should  come  upon  the  throne.  This  branch  of 
the  Bourbon  royal  house  of  Spain  claims  to  be  the  only 
legitimate  one  as  representing  the  male  line.  It  is  but  a 
little  group,  and  contains  only  seven  names,  all  of  whom, 
being  without  greatness,  and  deficient  in  either  mental  or 
moral  endowments,  fulfill  the  expectations  of  heredity. 

Don  Carlos^5521,  the  first,  was  a younger  son  of  Charles 
IV.  His  lack  of  energy  and  intellect  has  already  been 
referred  to.  His  good  moral  character  was  in  direct  con- 
trast to  his  brother,  Ferdinand  VII,  and  seems  unreason- 
able on  the  grounds  of  environment.  Don  Carlos  had 
three  sons,  Carlos[578],  John[379],  and  Ferdinand[580l  We 
hear  nothing  about  Ferdinand^3801.  Carlos[578]  did  not 
amount  to  much,  and  abdicated  his  claim  to  the  throne  in 
favor  of  his  brother  John[579].  John  was  a nobody,  and, 
furthermore,  became  “so  eccentric  in  his  conduct  that 
his  wife  left  him,  returning  to  her  brother’s  court  at 
Modena.”  * 

John  had  two  sons,  Carlos[381],  the  present  claimant, 
and  Alfonso[582],  who  had  a share  in  the  Carlist  uprising 
of  the  early  seventies.  He  was  nominally  in  control  of 
the  forces  in  Catalonia,  Navarre,  and  Valencia,  but 
apparently  did  nothing  himself.  Don  Carlos[581]  is  thus  de- 
scribed in  Hume’s  “Spain,”  p.  510:  “Ostentatious  and 
pleasure-loving,  was  a poor  figurehead  morally,  although 
his  appearance  was  splendid  in  the  extreme.  . . . This 
was  the  pretender’s  chance,  and  on  several  occasions  he 
would  have  been  welcomed  with  open  arms  by  a majority 


* Latimer,  “ Spain,”  p.  344. 


1 68 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


of  the  Spaniards,  if  he  had  possessed  the  wit  and  daring 
to  take  fortune  at  its  flood,  and  had  assumed  the  position 
of  a defender  of  authority  against  the  looming  anarchy 
which  threatened.”  His  chief  good  point  was  his  love 
of  literature  * Both  he  and  Alfonso  had  a good  educa- 
tion. One  other  person,  Elvira,  may  be  mentioned.  She 
is  a daughter  of  Carlos[581].  While  this  princess  was  “rus- 
ticating for  her  health,  on  account  of  extreme  nervous- 
ness and  hysteria,”  in  November,  1896,  she  eloped  with 
a married  man.  The  others  have  not  been  heard  from.f 
It  can  be  seen  from  the  chart,  that  there  is  no  expectation 
of  eminence  from  the  pedigree,  though  the  conditions  of 
the  times  have  called  for  it,  with  as  urgent  an  appeal  as 
ever  came  from  the  struggles  of  a dying  country. 

Summary  of  Modern  Spain 

The  occurrence  just  where  they  fall  of  every  one  of 
these  modern  Spanish  Bourbons,  is  compatible  with  the 
theory  of  mental  and  moral  inheritance.  There  is  no 
greatness  springing  up  where  we  least  expect  it;  there  is 
no  viciousness  and  imbecility  that  might  not  be  explained 
from  heredity  alone.  There  is  nothing  that  need  be 
more  than  pure  selection  and  repetition. 

Of  course,  we  expect  from  Gabon’s  law  that,  on  the 
average,  the  descendants  will  show  less  of  any  peculiarity 
than  the  parents,  and  here  we  shall  see  that  averaging  all 
the  descendants  it  is  so,  but  all  descendants  would  include 
other  countries,  Portugal,  Austria,  Italy,  and  France;  and 
including  all  these,  there  is  a bettering  of  affairs  from  the 

* Latimer,  “ Spain,”  p.  345. 

f Since  writing  the  above,  another  daughter  of  Don  Carlos  has,  according 
to  the  newspapers,  eloped  with  a coachman. 


Spain 


169 


time  of  Philip  Vt386]  onward,  but  one  must  notice  the  arti- 
ficial selection  that  took  place  in  Spain.  It  was  as  if 
they  were  breeding  mental  monstrosities  for  a bench 
show.  We  see  no  diminution  in  either  the  debauchery 
or  tyranny.  The  insanity  does  appear  less  at  the  bottom 
of  the  chart;  but  it  will  also  be  noticed  that  the  early 
degenerates,  Ferdinand  VI[536]  and  Philip[545],  son  of 
Charles  III[53%  who  were  avowedly  insane,  had  no  chil- 
dren, and  the  worst  was  consequently  eliminated,  while 
the  worst  moral  depravity  and  laziness  were  not  only 
perpetuated,  but  usually  drawn  from  and  in  a double  or 
triple  way.  This  view  of  selection  alone  is  important, 
because  this  same  family  is  usually  considered  to  have 
run  out  through  external  circumstances  and  to  have  fol- 
lowed an  easy  road  from  opulence  and  luxury  to  indolence 
and  decline. 

Among  all  the  races  considered  in  this  book,  a family 
never  runs  out  except  by  selection,  no  matter  what  the 
condition  of  environment  may  be.  It  is  far  from  my  wish 
to  assume  that  environment  has  done  nothing  in  molding 
these  characters,  and  especially  the  moral  characters  that 
fall  under  this  group  of  modern  Spain.  If  it  has  done 
much  in  order  to  account  for  a considerable  number  of 
excellent  ones,  and  these  often  as  good  as  any  princes 
that  have  ever  lived,  we  must  assume  that  it,  like  the 
pedigree,  was  likely  to  bring  about  great  variations. 
This  probability  will  be  discussed  when  all  the  greater 
groups  are  compared  one  with  the  other.  If  environ- 
ment did  have  much  to  do  with  molding  their  individual 
destinies,  there  is  no  apparent  culminated  inherited  effect 
from  it.  After  five  or  six  generations  the  people  are 
practically  neither  worse  nor  better  than  at  first. 


170  Heredity  in  Royalty 

Nineteenth  century  estimates  had  no  effect  in  lessening 
the  cruelty  and  arrogance  of  Ferdinand  II,  “Bomba.” 
He  was  as  bad  a tyrant  as  ever  lived  in  the  Middle  Ages. 
His  son  was  a man  of  the  same  type.  The  conditions  in 
Portugal  and  Spain  were  not  very  different  from  those  in 
Italy  where  Ferdinand  lived,  and  yet  Portugal  and  Spain 
show  us  nothing  to  be  compared  with  the  brutalities  of 
this  father  and  son.  Ferdinand  II  was  no  more  a tyrant 
than  his  grandmother  or  some  others  among  the  Haps- 
burgs,  Francis,  of  Modena,  for  instance.  Carlotta  alone 
of  those  belonging  to  the  immediate  branch  of  the  throne 
of  Spain  (occurring  at  the  left  of  the  chart)  would  be 
rightly  characterized  by  the  word  “ tyrant.”  Yet  the  con- 
ditions in  Spain  for  the  formation  of  an  autocrat  might 
be  justly  considered  as  conducive  to  this  effect  as  were 
those  of  Italy.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  branches  in 
Spain  are  practically  free  from  this  tyrannical  type,  ex- 
cept that  Carlotta,  daughter  of  Charles  IV,  showed  some- 
thing of  this  character,  and  one  of  her  sons,  Miguel, 
exhibited  it  in  a high  degree.  She  was  one  among  four 
children  to  show  the  violent  type.  On  the  other  side  of 
the  house,  where  the  blood  of  the  tyrannical  Caroline,  of 
Austria,  is  closest,  we  have  “Bomba”  and  Carlotta,  two 
of  the  same  type  in  three  children,  and  also  Henry,  one 
in  two,  and  Francis  II,  one  in  one.  (These  are  not  on 
the  chart.)  Imitation  may  have  played  a role,  but  then 
why  did  a certain  definite  number  imitate,  and  only  a 
certain  number  do  so? 

What  shall  we  say  here  of  free-will?  How  could  it 
have  played  any  appreciable  part  in  molding  the  charac- 
ters of  these  scores  of  people,  each  apparently  welding  a 
little  link  in  a chain,  the  destinies  of  which  seem  as  much 


Spain 


I71 

the  result  of  birth  and  breeding  as  the  product  of  the 
most  carefully  conducted  racing  stable? 

Spain:  opinions  averaged  from  Biog.  Universelle;  Nouv.  Biog.;  Lippin- 
cott’s;  J.  Dunlop;  Baumgarten;  W.  Coxe;  Dunham;  Lafuente;  Schafer, 
Lembke,  and  Schirrmacher;  Rosseeuw;  U.  R.  Burke;  M.  A.  S.  Hume;  Pres- 
cott; W.  Walton;  Colleta;  McMurdo,  Portugal;  Hubbard;  Yriarte;  Latimer; 
Stillman,  “Union  of  Italy  ”;  W.  Bollaert,  “ Wars  of  Port,  and  Spain”;  A. 
George,  “Queens  of  Spain”;  Motley;  and  Encyclop.  Britannica.  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  XI 


Hapsburgs  in  Austria 

[583]  — [656] 

A study  of  the  Bourbons  in  France,  and  the  Haps- 
burgs in  Spain,  naturally  leads  to  a consideration  of  the 
Hapsburgs  in  Austria,  the  third  division  of  the  great  in- 
terrelated group  who  held  sway  on  the  chief  thrones  of 
Europe  during  the  three  centuries  following  the  Renais- 
sance. France  has  shown  us  the  Bourbons,  beginning 
with  characters  who  were  either  distinctively  strong  or 
else  equally  weak,  followed  by  characters  mediocre  or 
dissolute,  and  ending  with  mediocrities  who  were  often 
high  in  the  moral  scale.  We  have  found  the  Hapsburgs 
in  Spain  first  appearing  either  strong  or  eccentric,  fol- 
lowed by  weaknesses,  coupled  with  the  same  eccentrici- 
ties, while  the  Bourbons  in  Spain  carried  the  later  type, 
even  to  the  present  day.  All  these  changes  can  be  prophe- 
sied from  a study  of  the  different  ingredients  of  blood 
in  the  pedigrees  formed,  provided  full  charts,  containing 
the  maternal  side,  be  constructed.  We  shall  now  see 
these  same  mental  peculiarities,  and  also  the  facial, 
appearing  in  the  house  of  Austria,  and  determine  how 
far  their  appearances  and  absences  are  in  keeping  with 
the  prediction  which  inheritance,  pure  and  simple,  will 
warrant. 

The  Austrian  branch  began  with  Ferdinand  I[515],  a 

172 


CHARLES  OF  STEIERMARK[™], 
Son  of  Ferdinand  I. 


ERNESTl 5M], 

Son  of  Maximilian  II. 


MAXIMILIAN  /,  EMPEROR^]. 


MAXIMILIAN  II,  EMPEROR  [c83] 


ELIZABETH^97], 
Married  Charles  IX  of  France. 


JOANNA  [593], 

Daughter  of  Ferdinand  / of  Austria. 


FERDINAND  II,  E MPEROR[oos]. 


LEOPOLD  /,  EMPEROR [C1C], 


Austria 


173 


mediocre,  though,  in  point  of  private  character,  an  excel- 
lent prince.  He  was  a younger  brother  of  the  Emperor 
Charles  V.  His  marriage  with  Anne,  daughter  of  Ladis- 
laus,  King  of  Poland,  must  be  considered  extremely  good 
from  the  present  point  of  view,  and  should  tend  to  lessen 
the  insanity  inheritable  from  Ferdinand’s  mother,  Joanna 
the  Mad. 

From  this  marriage  were  born  eleven  children[583]-[593], 
one  of  whom,  Mary[38°],  is  recorded  as  showing  the  mental 
unbalance  of  their  grandmother,  Joanna.  The  appear- 
ance of  talent  is  also  in  perfect  accord  with  the  expected. 
Maximilian  II[583]  represents  the  brains  of  the  family, 
while  the  others  are  all  close  to  mediocrity.  One  disso- 
lute descendant  would  not  be  unexpected,  though  the 
fact  that  none  of  this  type  is  found  is  not  especially  out  of 
harmony  with  prediction.  The  pedigree  of  this  ‘ ‘ frater- 
nity ” is  given  below. 


(9)  (5)  Max.  I [610].  (7)  (7)  Mary,  of  Burgundy.  Ferdinand  and  Casimir  IV,  of  Poland. 

Extremely  Dau.  of  Charles  Isabella.  Good  strength  and 

vigorous.  the  Bold.  Remarkably  . ability. 

Energetic  and  gifted, 

accomplished. 


(3)  (4)  Philip  the  Handsome  [B10].  (2)  (5)  Joanna  the  Mad. 

Weak  and  profligate.  Weak. 

Became  insane. 

I I 


(4)  (8)  Ladislaus,  of  Hungary. 
Good  character, 
though  feeble. 


1 


(7)  (8)  Max.  II  [»3]. 
Excellent 
character. 
Talented, 
liberal,  and 
amiable. 


(5)  (9)  Ferdinand  I [51B]. 

Normal  in  intellect. 

Many  fine  moral  qualities. 


Anne  [584].  (6)  (7)  Ferdinand  [585]. 

“ Obscure.”  Able  ad- 

ministrator. 
Excellent 
character. 


(5)  (7)  Anne,  of  Hungary. 

Good  sense  and  excellent 
character. 


Mary  [G86J . Magdalen  [B8rJ. 

Became  insane.  “Obscure.” 


Catherine  [588].  Eleanor  [689].  Margaret  [590]. 

“Obscure.”  Intelligent,  pious,  “Obscure.” 

and  amiable. 


Barbara  [«*].  (5)  (4)  Charles  [«»].  Joanna  [693]. 

“ Obscure.”  Energetic,  but  Normal. 

narrow-minded.  Average  ability. 

Of  little  Virtuous, 

distinction. 


i74  Heredity  in  Royalty 

Maximilian  II[583],  the  eldest  son,  was  in  every  way 
normal,  and  an  excellent  character.  For  this  reason  the 
psychosis  might  not  be  expected  to  appear  again  in  any 
of  his  children,  provided  his  alliance  be  with  normal 
stock  like  that  of  his  father,  Ferdinand  I. 

Maximilian  II,  however,  married  Mary[519J,  a normal 
daughter  of  Charles  V,  who  was  abnormal,  with  abnormal 
ancestry,  his  mother  being  Joanna  the  Mad.  We  should 
now  expect  strong  variations  among  the  children. 


(3)  (4)  Philip  the 
Handsome. 
Weak  and 
profligate. 


Joanna 
the  Mad. 
Weak. 
Became 
insane. 


(5)  (9)  Ferdinand  I f615]. 
Normal  in 
intellect. 

Many  fine  moral 
qualities. 


Lkdislaus, 
of  Hungary. 
Good  char- 
acter,though 
feeble. 

I 


(3)  (4)  Philip  the 
Handsome. 
Weak  and 
profligate. 


1 

(5)  (7)  Anne. 

Good  sense 
and  excellent 
character. 


(2)  (s)  Joanna 
the  Mad. 
Weak. 
Became 
insane. 


(5)  (7)  Emanuel, 

of  Portugal. 
Mediocre 
capacity. 
Liberal  and 
just. 


(8)  (3)  Charles  V [614]. 

X Melancholic,  cruel, 
inordinately  am- 
bitious. A great 
ruler. 


(5)  (4)  Mary. 

Despotic 
and  mean 
nature. 


(6)  (7)  Isabella. 

Very  attractive  and 
virtuous. 


(7)  (8)  Max.  II  r683]. 

Excellent  character. 
Talented,  liberal, 
and  amiable. 

1 


(4X5)  Anne  [694]. 

Amiable  and 
pious. 

m.  Philip  II,  of 
Spain. 

(5)  (5)  Matthias  [698]. 
Ambitious, 
restless, 
intriguing. 


(6)  (6)  Mar  j [519]. 

Virtuous  and 
accomplished. 


(5)  (3)  Rudolph  [6951. 

X Weak  and  pleasure- 
loving. 

Subject  to  hypochondria 
and  melancholia. 

(6)  (6)  Max.  [599]. 

Rather  mediocre, 
unselfish,  and  unambitious. 
Prudent  and  just. 


(2)  (6)  Ernest  [696]. 

Weak  and  indolent, 
though  amiable. 
Subject  to  melancholia. 


(6)  (7)  Albert  [600]. 

An  able,  well-inten- 
tioned and  good  prince, 
whose  peculiarities 
were  his  slowness  and 
excessive  reserve. 


(5)  (9)  Elizabeth  [697]. 

Noted  for  her  virtues. 


(5)  (9)  Margaret  [601]. 

N oted  for  her  sanc- 
tified life. 


What  we  do  get  is  this  — two  subject  to  melancholia, 
[595]  and  [596],  and  a third,  t800],  eccentrically  slow  and  re- 
served; with  the  other  five  normal;  a result  to  be  expected, 
since  the  majority  should  resemble  their  parents  and 
normal  ancestors.  The  entire  grading  of  the  children,  as 
regards  virtue  (right-hand  figures),  is,  (5),  (3),  (6),  (9), 
(5),  (6),  (7),  (9).  This  high  rating  for  moral  qualities  is 


Austria 


J75 


to  be  expected,  because  the  parents  were  both  as  high  as 
(8)  and  (6),  while  the  grandparents  average  well,  (9),  (7), 
(3))  (7)-  The  intellectual  grades  (left  hand)  for  the  chil- 
dren are,  (4),  (5),  (2),  (5),  (5),  (6),  (6),  (5).  There  should 
have  been  one  in  a very  high  grade  to  correspond  with 
the  genius  inbred  in  the  ancestry  (grandparents  of  [514]~ 
[515]).  So  all  but  one  in  this  generation  may  be  called 
expected. 

The  third  generation  is  from  Charles[592],  a younger  son 
of  Ferdinand  I[515].  This  Charles,  who  inherited  Styria 
on  his  father’s  death,  has  left  us  little  record  in  history 
save  his  zeal  in  persecuting  Protestants.  He  married 
Mary,  daughter-  of  Albert  IV,  of  Bavaria,  very  good  stock 
at  this  time,  though  devoid  of  genius.  Thus  no  genius 
should  appear  among  the  children,  and  none  did. 

Ferdinand  II[6031  was  the  only  child  of  the  nine  to 
rise  at  all  above  mediocrity.  It  is  also  to  be  noted  that 
no  appearance  of  the  family  insanity  is  recorded;  and 
this  defect  should  be  eliminated  by  this  time,  as  we  find 
parents,  grandparents,  uncles,  and  aunts,  except  [58%  all 
free  from  the  taint.  Thus  the  stock  in  Austria  is  now 
relatively  good,  though  mediocre. 

Ferdinand  Ilf603]  also  married  outside  the  Hapsburg- 
Bourbon  neurotic  and  degenerate  ranks.  His  children 
also  will  be  free  from  the  stigma,  though  we  cannot  now 
expect  much  above  the  average  in  intellectual  qualities. 
What  this  fraternity  of  four  children  does  give  is  (6)  (9), 
(6)  (7),  and  two  others  “obscure.”  So  here  we  have 
no  unexpected  exception.  (See  pedigree,  p.  177.) 

Ferdinand  III[611],  (6)  (9),  married  first  a princess  of 
the  tainted  house,  Maria[529],  daughter  of  Philip  III,  of 
Spain.  Abnormalities  might  now  be  expected.  There 


176 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Co'S; 


•o  a 


E 

) c v 

s— 

5 oj  mb' 
fcZ.SS  g. 


so 

<: 


gpa 

«— 


£ 

£0 


-ti  « 

3 6jCx  0 

rt  c Q J • 

Iso  gf- 

JoOSJi 


ftS  " . 
BgJ  E « 

C*2  rt  B £ _ 

a u « u « 


^E’gii 

+-  O rt  oj 

o-Sj<.2P 

c rt  - 
r rt  « o 

a 


« -c 

£■§  .2 

o 

- aj  c 
“^3  o'  o 
l-H  n \c  tc  - 
t!  ^ ci)  5 co 
« u EtW)£> 
■£  ’S  "U  <«  to 

<£S22 


s . 

bfl  S o 

„ E w x o- 

~£  * 
<oO  «u 


n & 2?  £’£ 

*§§« 
.2  «-g>2 
> <.  -a’S 

LJ—  ^ - RS  <U  . 
- *3  v *_.  c to  c 

iJJj  >5So 
£f'i:-|'o  2 » S'& 

ss£g«££  j; 


§ e 


•Sis 

>"2  u 
rt  5 c~ 

m “-c 

— c °- 
-O  S-O 

s?3  5! 
a g« 

SwS. 


•2  £ >,-= 
•g  £ c — 
£ o “ S 
fe^S  §• 


?- 

is  &g 

u u O 

_ RS  (U  fc- 

65  s 


soS 

2:  P 


o O 

3= 


HH  S?  3 C 
T3  — 

gl*  tuO  2 • 
03  E c ■%  -a 

TJ  Ji  rt  C o 

S;j3«Pm 

ft4  < £ S'la 


S E 


gO 

U: 


if 


distinction.  Accounts  of  her  life  mention 

no  gifts  or  peculiarities. 


Austria 


177 


Q-  n ^ 

19? 


g'2i? 

”5* 

p 2 

3 °- 


0£i 


2> 
*1  3 
« 3 
- n 


o*>^ 

5-  crn> 

n >;  3 
p 3 p 

3 0-3 

2.^  Q. 


O-  rt  L 

crfL' 


*5  W2 

P * P 

w"  S ^ 

o 

>0^ 
“3.p  Cd“ 

3 5 P 

s §.g 

“3  s- 


■9  gz^ 
S.SJ  8 3 

“3  2 Q. 
-g-.-c  3 & 
re  3>E-§ 
“ a -.3 

« 3 Q, 
3 rt  H 

p n gj 


S-2  s Oo> 

w 8 a 2 2s 

.g&  S.*g 


3tgs  32> 
“(§  ? S-s? 

ff  g'S.w  8 « 

w o <->  cr--^ 
• 2 * rr  &>  ^ 


*J0> 

2 p 3 

S:?  S 

3 0, — , 


i78 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


3 <XJ 

>;i-s6SS- 

« % x-g’S  S 

s«M  s 0.0. 


3 O 
< c 


«■§ 
p rt_ 


oj  be  «2  <u 
X h c 'a 
£ cg.S 

Swi  S 


III! 

ers  <u  « a 

^ ^.S.S 


TO 

So.j 


c 3 E •o  ' 

4<l§ 


. «•* 
SP£-g 
S &o  > 


D.'rtJ'g  g u 
— 1~  u.  O T3  T3  3 _ 
•3  C/3  «tj  p C . — 1 

"— • i*_,  p *p  4)  <D 

Ph  SH  £ 


re; 

£-••2  C 
« £ c~ 

■c  S-S 

(SOP 


(U  - i u 

p.fe^'g 


<u 


° « Ss 
«.S  o- 

tJ  nj  W 

a»  o O 
«hJ  = 


> rt  ^ w 

■2  £.2  §|  ■§,.«_ 

5 BJ'S  t?S  « 
S-S  « c 
? oS  c £«.S 


O flj  £ (J  yj 

-X  — S'O  {ft 

>,  fa^J  £ <U  g- 

*3  S x^'rt.S 

See rS  a 2 C 
w nj  a.  a, 


» *>  jj 

^.£  o 
w a>  fcT3 
J>  be  <i> 

« « ® 'c- 

UHal 


*«  3.C 
> O X 
m--  O 

M ^£ 

'o-'S 

-.O  5 

<u  rt  ™- 

a . « 


r-;  3T3  12  "> 

L1jk2  " 

^ M_'  £t3  nj 
»-<  ^ rt  > 

2 E M«‘g, 

O o a.u  *7 
a o •=  r ►» 

S ^ & * § 

-K2  aS 


« “o 

§>o 


X's  'a 

2 £ 3 a 

T3  ** 

-S  = “2^ 

o «.5c  « 

^ g g o 

fc.Q  u 2 to 

fc«<;  E 


^T3  w 

Hg-2. 


-.£”£- 
*22  2 
fcs«i<  4) 


S^X  > . 

V .£  Q-  2 

c_  ^ a 
a'g  oj  a 

< 2 

&&  . s 

dH  o ti) « 

^Pi.Sia 


Austria 


179 


were  but  two  children  from  this  marriage,  Mary  Anne[615], 
(3)  (5);  and  Leopold  IC616],  (5)  (9),  who  was  an  eccentric 
recluse  of  weak  constitution.  The  daughters  by  another 
marriage,  [617]  and  [618],  are  “obscure.” 

The  next  alliance,  that  of  Leopold  I[616],  was  excellent 
from  the  standpoint  of  heredity.  His  third  wife,  Magda- 
lene Theresa  (8)  (7),  was  herself  an  intellectual  woman, 
a daughter  of  Philip  William,  of  the  Palatine  house,  and 
not  of  the  contaminated  stock.  In  her  we  see  the  begin- 
ning of  a new  group  of  distinguished  Hapsburgs,  center- 
ing around  the  famous  Maria  Theresa.  Among  her 
five  children,  one,  Joseph  I (8)  (7),  represented  her 
traits,  while  Mary  Anne[621]  and  Charles  VL622]  showed  the 
indifferent  make-up  of  their  father.  The  variations  called 
for  by  the  ancestry  are  found.  Again  good  and  intelli- 
gent, if  not  famous  ancestors  were  introduced  in  the 
alliance  which  Charles  VI[622]  made  with  the  house  of 
Brunswick.  He  married  a daughter  of  Lewis  Ru- 
dolph[185],  of  the  good  and  literary  branch  of  Brunswick, 
studied  in  the  early  chapters  of  this  book.  The  only 
child  to  reach  maturity  was  Maria  Theresa,  the  famous 
queen  of  Austria,  an  able,  brave,  and  noble  woman.  Her 
qualities  are  to  be  traced  directly  to  her  father’s  mother, 
with  Joseph  I,  her  uncle,  as  a collateral  link.  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  we  have  seen  nothing  in  the  category  of  vice 
or  mental  deformity  in  this  later  portion  of  the  Hapsburg 
house.  Leopold  I[6163  came  as  a final  reappearance 
of  this  type,  not  seen  since  Ernest[596],  now  five  genera- 
tions in  the  background.  How  much  less  free  Spain 
and  France  were  from  vice,  depravity,  and  melancholia, 
we  have  already  seen.  The  contrast  here  is  clearly  due 
to  differences  in  the  selection  of  stock,  for  it  is  folly  to 


G tO  ^ 

~ 3 -c  • 
.52  *-*  oo'O 
jz  v ^ - 

cjOm  £ 


,— ■ 0,S  2*^  ^ 

- •£  ^ c a^- 
I — ■ a 55  I o 00 

.So  =■§  ao 
s'3  2 o'0  a 
>3««oS3 


OJ 


^ £" 


j*  wT 

S.S  S 


!»«.; 

i ou  ! 


£_,  § 

.5- 

ra5  k-  - 

E «-5'  ■ « 
C 3 73 -a  g 
^ o*  >-  « c 

T c~ 

" rt 


.e 
_ *5 

<u  u~  a> 

f- 


V o—  S 

£ „-S2 1 ^ 

-3  w C £ 3 
T3  W rcj ”"'  _C  O 

Mj;2h  Er^  '3)' 

Sh  o^!  ^"g 


.2  g S 

22.2  >,2  ,S 

tj  i,  c_  ■ r 

rr  ^ G'a  cjd  > 
0.3  §s.5£_ 
0<l7  O C rt 
a)  bio  > C > 

jf  <u  nJ  -r* 

"°<;'®2  a 


*-  U — , CO 

o c rt  3 
°r  E o 
rt  — ! o f - 


L8  .s 

►— I O 3 

->-<  E- 
a>  S ii"3 
s°SS 
S’3  S- 
O^Pfe 


£ 3 
W S 


-2  £ 

0*  nJ 

H-g 

~“S 

« a ° 

SwS? 


J5'3  S « 

s>«s 


r-l'd  'O  _ 


;.S  ,M'0 

J eo-O  4J 

: C nj  tr 

3 a-oQ 


G «o  rt 
•rOW 
3 Q.  nj 

<•5  2 

fl)  ^ X 

‘Sjs-S 


__ 

*o 

u 3 
• C 

fr-1  re  T3 


•TJ  y . 
X O 3 <U 

soSs 


TO  ^,  .; 

; 


hi  rt  .£  'a 

a-£s| 
<OiS  M- 
fc‘oW  I 


■£  o 

-J}8 

lo- 

ws 


§ TJ  3 
ii-  _ P c ° 

"H*  tS 


| 'EM 


OS 

1)  CO  *- 

5 S-S- 


.52  a)  rt  • 

a — ai- 

c o - 


rt'D  art  " 

fe  h5  'o  cj  ■« 


L| 

•£  o ^* 
Jo  c u 
- 

z;  o rt 

MO’S 


rts 

JL.'a  co 
— - G 3 


Js  §>.8 
<->=.£ 
.53  ^ 21  <u 
J=  2“e.^ 
rt  <u  <y  *> 

S>  £ 8 


~~  to  3 
►"<  fe  co‘  & 

JS  c 3.SP 

a v om 

o ^ IS  • 
£ 2 
« « 
s — ' *-•  to 

^ X A 3 

ow  S< 


g-o 
^ 3 

rt  *3 

So 


3 o.S 

7^  5 

U 2 re 

w 

tS  a 


■g.a 

nj  7Z 
c.£ 
'S 
a)  o 
fc  ^ 

T3  H 


rt  'C  3 rt  • 

uw 


4»  o 

,-1,13  3^G  <u 

S g'O  ° g 

£_,  3 C co  f- 

5 G "IS  Z 

-*  v'a  2: 


2 o « 


►J  y rt  > 3 


tastes,  but  showed 
singular  bravery  and 
fortitude. 

Married  Louis  XVT, 


Austria 


1 8 1 


suppose  that  the  individuals  of  this  special  group  were  not 
subject  to  the  usual  temptations  which  come  to  princes. 
In  the  study  of  the  Hapsburg  “lip,”  we  shall  see  why 
this  peculiarity  was  maintained,  when  the  degeneracy  was 
not,  and  this  also  by  the  action  of  selection  alone. 

Maria  Theresa  married  Francis  I,  of  Lorraine,  which 
brings  us  to  another  subdivision  of  the  family,  with  a 
new  facial  and  physical  type;  and  we  shall  see  how  both 
the  Hapsburg  “lip”  and  the  weak  mentalities  were  again 
occasionally  introduced  into  the  reigning  family  of  Austria. 

From  the  union  of  the  Hapsburgs  with  the  house  of 
Lorraine,  beneficial  results  might  be  expected  to  follow, 
since  little  that  was  undesirable  existed  in  the  later  stock, 
and  in  the  father,  grandfather,  and  brother  of  Francis^6271 
we  find  able  and  excellent  characters.  It  would  now  be 
impossible  from  expected  inheritance,  that  any  consider- 
able number  of  degenerates  should  be  found  in  the  next 
generation.  One  would  also  expect,  among  thirteen  chil- 
dren, three  or  four  repeating  the  superior  mental  gifts 
and  active  ambition  of  their  mother,  Maria  Theresa. 
The  chart  below  shows  that  there  were  just  four  distinctly 
brilliant  offspring,  while  the  high  moral  average  is  en- 
tirely in  keeping  with  the  pedigree.  The  cruelty  of  Caro- 
line^351 remains,  however,  unaccounted  for. 

The  next  pedigree  (p.  182)  gives  us  Maria  Theresa, 
now  a grandparent  and  the  only  decidedly  intellectual 
ancestor  on  the  chart.  Charles^481,  the  celebrated  gen- 
eral of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  was  the  one  to  whom  the 
birthright  of  his  grandmother  descended;  while  the  others 
were  not  far  from  mediocrity;  while  to  Rained6481  alone, 
came  the  distinctly  trivial  mind  of  his  mother.  The 
pedigree  is  devoid  of  moral  degenerates,  and  this  is  upheld 


« o • s 

o *— ■»  rt 


. 3 0>  •" 

Sg^o 
log  a 


a«' 


„ „ XO 

*BS~?X 

i-  « x«  o o 
jy  3 m u 6jo  js  _ 
been  o _ >3 
jo  3 ' o ti  5! 
£<3  oOhxi  o 


.2 

*5  . fc 

E D D. 

< b s 

-rt.2  "- 

*C  'Op- 
es <u^2 
»«-<  *-  *« 


£7*  V G 

J5-S«  s “ 

•ssfjja 

wu-SSi; 


i’.a^ 

jp.g’c.H 

o 0.-0  X 
— ' 3 <d  <J  . 

.2  - a £ </> 
3 |tJ  T3  rt  £ 

Jw  £>3  is 


rt  gif**- 

£ Js'H'f 

WfeO  g 


r— » 3 W 

g o p 3 u 

^ . i s §i « 

*>  c c o 2 w 

ai.g-ss^.H_ 

|M  SP~-o  3 S 

g'ssisss 


».s 

- u rt  - 

t:  a xi 

rt  in  O 


J- 

C <U 


*J  ~ aJr 


rt  3‘e  ni 

S“  C u 
C/3  rt  JZ 


U oO 


o 2 


<!  S 


^ c 
S <3 


*— ' vx: 

u e « 

c ‘-'S 
loo 
P^OhO 


00 


rt 


•—  c - to  rt 
CLJ  ^ _4J  3 (j 

•5»E^o« 
.3  § S.S.Jfu" 
wiu  ifi.g 

OO 


>-  “-H 

to  C ^ t/i 
<L)  D iE 
’jjj  *0  P ^ - 
J3x^  £ xj 

o-S2Qg 


S3o 
£ E & 
1)  2 

s-^ 


E u 


'.2  M 
« C 1 

Sw-2 


WO 


C ™ X o 
q,  rt  X a)  rt  _ 
° ^ Sx  rt 

hJoO  rt  *5 


°*T.S’a 

-to  C U vt_,  — 

o 

g-SS.'g 
w£  2° 


-Q.Ji  C 
U rC  w 
rt  u u 
.►  .2  .o 


■oi?f 

<L>;3  <0 

JjSj- 


2 c—  g 
a=  ° « 

j'  « > 


— 3 3 ,u 


Sr.  • g jj 

• O <u  g " rt 

ITV'S  e-g  o 

^os-ss 

jjj  Q.  rt  2 ’0  rt 

O O - to  X O 

iP-<  rt  rt  W,^ 


<5'D 
5 G 
<3  rt 


2-'S  J.  2 

to  £ x > IS 
'u  P 2 ' b 
cto  ►** 

rt  rt  {jo  j;  2 

v«  *7  .E.®/ 


o ” o 

G 

C 3 3 


G rt 


tox  O 3 

rt  v u 

OJ-H  U (O 

I-  t Oj 

« b si 
sC*5*C° 


e S 


^ o 


Austria 


183 

among  the  children,  except  that  John[847]  was  both  hot- 
headed and  something  of  a libertine,  though  not  a dis- 
tinctly bad  man.  This  prince  cannot,  however,  be 
viewed  as  unexpected,  since  his  father’s  only  vices  were 
those  of  a libertine,  and  the  aunt,  Caroline[635],  though 
unaccounted  for  in  the  former  generation,  was,  it  must 
be  remembered,  not  praised  for  her  virtues. 

There  is  a slight  error  in  this  group,  though  it  only 
amounts  to  the  equivalent  of  the  traits  of  one  person.  We 
might  have  expected  three  instead  of  one  to  have  been 
decidedly  inferior  mentally,  taking  after  their  mother, 
who  is  supposed  to  carry  twenty-five  per  cent  of  influence. 
Thus  we  have,  as  usual,  less  than  ten  per  cent  of  errors. 

Perhaps  the  mental  and  bodily  weakness  of  Maria 
Louisa  is  to  be  traced  in  the  appearance  of  convulsions 
and  epilepsy,  which  afflicted  so  many  of  her  children. 
The  following  quotation  from  Vehse  is  of  interest  in  this 
connection.  “Whereas  the  children  of  Maria  Theresa 
were  all  of  them  healthy,  the  sons  of  Ludovica  [Maria 
Louisa^5431]  were  afflicted  with  the  hereditary  evil  of  the 
Spanish  Bourbons,  convulsions  and  epilepsy.  The  Arch- 
duke John  alone  was  free  from  it,  and  all  the  other  sons 
suffered  more  or  less  from  the  terrible  malady;  the  Arch- 
duke Charles  very  badly;  most  of  all,  the  Archduke 
Rodolph.  Ludovica’s  daughters  were  free,  but  the  mal- 
ady reappeared  in  the  granddaughters,  as,  for  instance, 
in  the  Archduchess-Co-Regent  Caroline,  of  Saxony.” 

In  the  next  generation,  genius  is  removed  to  an  uncle 
and  a great-grandparent;  while  the  old  Spanish  psychosis 
is  introduced  again  in  the  personality  of  Ferdinand  I[548], 
(2)  (3),  of  the  Two  Sicilies,  as  a grandparent.  The 
first  two  ascending  generations  are  below  mediocrity,  and 


f »-.*3 

^ ’w  3 o 

.2  M-~  S_ 

Jill 

^ ^ rt  S 


w V"  c y 
•n  Jr  ««s 


I " a, 

^ O E 

ca.2  4>  - 

■£  T3  *■* 
nJ  <u  T3 

S§.g 


C c 


_v  M 
c*n  2 

fti  .3  ^ 
~=c/3  £ 


r-l  (§ 

§ o 
jo^ic 

« g.i'S 

S 3 2 H 

~ CD  ” CO 

-C  q;  t»0  C 

H S-g-S 

rt  0_~-Q 

'S'3  c-2 

« n i 


o’e 
fa  <; 


_r  a 

e! 

CD  -*-■ 


'S  o >>jj  ^ 

« a> 

^ C"1 1>  ’>  aj 


nJC/}  o c h: — 1 
c!  O « ™ 

U oO  §o 


r-l,  "6 

o C flj  o 

0 — ‘3  o 

1  (r^  CT  kO 

« S a>  a 

T S V 2 

-S|s-S 

"ila 


Jr.S’O 

‘■cx  S 


O-Q 

so 

O; 


E-O 

_EO 

U: 


5 f"  a 

^ tl  E 

nJ  O <u 


Ji  * -rt  o 

0.T3  c (S' 
rt</3  O B u 
_C  ^ O n 2 

U oO  co 


f--S3§ 

o R.  2 Br 


«’S 

= 3 

-9-o  . 

h4  d 

oj  .'H3 
’C  £i  ^ 

Cj  3 ‘3 


.2  bC‘r 

L.  i-  . 

5 S- 

Sw 


(0  . 
E ►> 
E b 


E 

.2  Sij  >2 
o o « s b 
c t o >." 
2 rt  Mi;  fg 

fc.X-o>  £ 


5 o-  S- 

2 b-b.E_g 
-^.E  C-=:2 
C.—1  rt  o— . 

O m ~ to  nJ 
o **T  T3  * ~ _ 


2 ^ 

.Hy>« 

po*c'3 

° c S* 

g.5  2 

O O ~ 
O)  u c 


“O  £ ..= 

5 £ $fa 
g £.£_£ 
‘-3  S^'S. 

c 


t-  *5  £ , 


! i> 


^ 3 rt  -O  W) 

; 3 > c 

1 r.  *r*  *73  *r« 

w E i:  a>  3 

j rt  jj  w 

<u.23  S3  3 **  ■ 

•j;  rt,i«3  “ ‘ “ 


0-2 


Sc 


R *,  w C« 

- « Ci  3 

<J5  S EuS 


Austria 


185 


we  have  two  grandparents  accounted  as  bad.  This  gen- 
eration makes  the  poor  showing  that  we  might  expect. 
The  ancient  psychosis  or  mental  weakness  appeared  in 
full  force  in  both  the  sons,  one  of  whom  was  also  afflicted 
with  epilepsy. 

Both  Ferdinand[652]  and  Francis  Charles[858i  were  men- 
tally unfit  to  rule,  and  in  turn  abdicated  to  Francis  Joseph 
the  present  emperor,  whose  fortitude  and  ability  stand 
out  in  sharp  contrast  with  his  two  predecessors.  But  it 
is  to  be  feared  that  misfortunes  have  not  ceased  to  befall 
the  ancient  house  of  Hapsburg,  and  in  1889  the  myste- 
rious death  of  Rudolph,  eldest  son  of  Francis  Joseph, 
added  another  chapter  to  the  tragedies  which  of  late 
have  cursed  several  branches  of  this  august  family.  In 
a short  time  after  Rudolph’s  death,  it  became  generally 
considered  that  this  cultivated,  and  in  many  ways  esti- 
mable prince,  had,  in  company  with  his  mistress,  killed 
himself  with  his  own  hand. 

In  reviewing  the  history  of  the  Hapsburgs,  one  sees 
the  original  strength  at  first  polluted  by  the  insanity  of 
the  Spanish  house,  which  psychosis  was  in  turn  eliminated 
by  the  Bavaria  marriages,  causing  mediocrity  to  prevail, 
until  the  exceptionally  intellectual  Magdalene  Theresa 
started  a new  center  of  brilliancy  in  Joseph  I and  Maria 
Theresa.  The  psychosis  became  virtually  eliminated 
during  this  period.  During  the  second  or  Hapsburg- 
Lorraine  division,  mental  soundness  and  a high  average 
was  maintained  for  one  generation,  which  was  reduced 
to  mediocrity  in  the  next,  the  Archduke  Charles[843]  alone 
possessing  the  genius  of  Maria  Theresa.  In  this  same 
generation  crept  in  the  mental  disease  of  the  Spanish 
Bourbons,  which,  after  a second  marriage  with  the  same 


1 86  Heredity  in  Royalty 

stock,  produced  the  imbeciles  Ferdinand  Vt652i  and  Francis 
Charles[656]. 

Aside  from  the  present  emperor,  Francis  Joseph,  the 
only  important  Hapsburg  who  has  lived  during  the  last 
generation  was  the  Archduke  Albert  (see  portrait  opp.  p. 
195),  who,  during  the  Italian  wars  of  1866,  won  signal 
victories,  and  was  rewarded  by  promotion  to  commander- 
in-chief  of  the  army.  He  was  also  the  author  of  a work, 
“Responsibility  in  War,”  which  attracted  much  atten- 
tion.* This  last  illustrious  Hapsburg  was  a son  of  the 
Archduke  Charles[643],  who,  it  should  be  remembered, 
was  the  only  offspring  of  Leopold  II  to  inherit  the  genius 
of  Maria  Theresa.  Thus,  intellectually,  the  variations 
up  and  down  the  scale  that  are  shown  us  by  the  Haps- 
burgs  are  virtually  in  perfect  accord  with  heredity. 

With  regard  to  moral  qualities,  there  are  one  or  two 
exceptions,  though  not  enough  to  introduce  more  than 
five  per  cent  of  error.  Among  the  seventy-four  persons, 
there  were  only  three  in  grade  (3)  for  virtues,  and  none 
in  (1)  or  (2).  To  be  assured  that  this  is  in  full  keeping 
with  heredity,  one  needs  but  to  glance  over  the  pedigrees, 
looking  for  the  cross-mark  (x)  which  indicates  a grade 
as  low  as  (3)  for  virtues.  He  will  find,  among  all  the  an- 
cestors, but  four  with  the  cross  against  them.  This  is,  of 
course,  a remarkably  clean  showing.  The  offspring  bal- 
ance the  pedigrees,  and  the  pedigree  the  offspring.  In 
fact,  we  have  but  two  exceptions  among  seventy-four. 
These  are  Marie  Amelia[833]  and  Caroline16351,  whose  bad 
traits  remain  unaccounted  for.  Thus,  on  neither  the  in- 
tellectual nor  the  moral  side  is  there  more  than  five  per 
cent  of  error. 


* Lippincott’s  Biog.  Diet. 


FERDINAND  III,  EMPEROR^11]. 


MARIA  [M9J 

Married  Ferdinand  III  of  Austria,  daughter  of 
Philip  III  of  Spain. 


LEOPOLD  WILLIAM  [»»], 
Son  of  Ferdinand  II. 


FERDINAND  IV,  EMPEROR, 

Son  of  Ferdinand  III,  Born  1633,  died  7654. 


MARIA  THERESA,  EMPRESS [626]. 


FRANCIS  /,  EMPEROR  [627]„ 
Consort  of  Maria  Theresa. 


JOSEPH  II  OF  AUSTRIA  [CM]. 


CAROLINE^l 
Of  the  Two  Sicilies. 


The  Hapsburg  Lip 


187 


The  Hapsburg  Lip 

In  tracing  the  facial  peculiarities  of  the  three  families 
of  Spain,  France,  and  Austria,  the  great,  swollen  under  lip 
of  the  Hapsburgs  offers  such  a distinct  feature  that  other 
traits  of  physiognomy  may  as  well  be  neglected.  This 
swollen,  protruding  lip  was  in  the  sixteenth  century,  in 
its  original  type,  usually  combined  with  a long,  heavy 
under  jaw,  as  one  sees  in  the  Emperor  Charles  V[o14]. 
Later  the  jaw  became  more  nearly  normal,  though  the 
lip  still  persisted,  and  can  be  traced,  with  its  varying 
degrees  of  intensification,  through  no  less  than  eighteen 
generations,  coming  out  in  at  least  seventy  of  the  various 
descendants. 

Its  first  appearance,  according  to  history,  was  in 
Cymburga,  who  was  born  in  the  last  part  of  the  four- 
teenth century,  and  became  the  wife  of  Ernest,  the  sec- 
ond patriarch  of  the  house  of  Hapsburg*  In  its  latest 
manifestation  it  appears  at  the  present  day  with  dimin- 
ished strength  and  modified  form  in  the  young  king  of 
Spain.  This  is  a remarkable  instance  of  the  force  of 
heredity  in  perpetuating  a physical  trait,  and  has  been 
thought  to  be  an  example  of  prepotency,  the  male  line 
being  able  to  transmit  a deeply  rooted  peculiarity,  the 
features  from  the  maternal  side  having  no  influence  in 
counteracting  it. 

As  an  example  of  prepotency,  the  Hapsburg  lip  was 
cited  by  Darwin. f To  quote  his  words: 

4 ‘It  would  appear  that  in  certain  families  some  one 
ancestor  and  after  him  others  in  the  same  family  must 

* Coxe,  “Austria,”  1820,  vol.  i,  p.  297. 
t Darwin,  “Animals  and  Plants,”  1868,  vol.  ii,  p.  65. 


1 8 8 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


have  had  great  power  in  transmitting  their  likeness 
through  the  male  line;  for  we  cannot  otherwise  under- 
stand how  the  same  features  should  so  often  be  trans- 
mitted after  marriage  with  various  females  as  has  been 
the  case  with  the  Austrian  emperors.” 

The  same  idea  as  the  above  is  expressed  by  Strahan 
(“Marriage  and  Disease,”  p.  64).  As  a matter  of  fact, 
this  feature,  the  big  lip,  was  maintained  and  transmitted 
in  no  more  remarkable  way  than  the  insanity  was,  and 
for  the  same  reason,  namely  — intermarriages  in  their  own 
family,  and  time  and  time  again  the  selection  of  those 
who  exhibited  the  feature  rather  than  those  who  did 
not. 

In  almost  every  generation  there  were  some  who  showed 
the  peculiar  lip,  and  there  were  always  some  who  did  not 
inherit  it  in  any  degree  at  all,  and  this  is  also  paralleled 
by  the  mental  abnormality.  Therefore,  since  an  increas- 
ing number  in  each  successive  generation  were  free  from 
the  peculiarity,  the  average  of  all  descendants  in  each 
generation  would  give  a diminution  of  the  quality  in 
question,  and  we  have  not  a prepotency,  but  merely  what 
we  might  expect  were  the  features  transmitted  in  the 
same  way  as  the  mental  and  moral  qualities. 

The  following  is  a list  in  each  generation  of  those  who 
exhibited  this  peculiarity.  A study  of  the  charts  of  de- 
scent shows  that  those  inheriting  the  “lip”  were  the  per- 
sons who  were  repeatedly  chosen  as  the  progenitors  of 
the  following  generations.  At  the  same  time,  there  were 
at  least  as  many  more  whose  lips  were  in  no  way  peculiar, 
but  these  were  almost  never  the  ones  selected  to  become 
direct  ancestors  of  the  ruling  houses  of  Austria,  Spain, 
and  France.  They  are  graded  in  the  following  classes: 


MARIA  CHRISTINA]0™),  MARIA  JOSE  P HA  [“»], 

Sister  of  Marie  Antoinette  of  F ranee.  Married  Augustus  of  Saxony. 


FERDINAND  III  OF  TUSCAN 
Son  of  Leopold  II. 


MAXIMILIAN]™], 
Son  of  Maria  Theresa. 


LEOPOLD  II,  EMPEROR  [“*]  MARIA  LOUISA  [543], 

Daughter  of  Charles  III  of  Spain,  married  Leo- 
pold II  of  Austria. 


MARIA  A NNE [642],  MARY[a], 

Daughter  of  Leopold  II.  Daughter  of  George  III  (see  Hanouer). 


The  Hapsburg  Lip  189 

slight , marked , and  very  marked.  An  asterisk  is  placed 
beside  those  whose  portraits  are  in  this  book. 

In  the  lists  below  we  see  the  proportionate  appearance 
of  this  feature,  for  each  generation  in  Spain,  France,  and 
Austria.  In  a certain  number  of  persons  the  trait  was 
absent.  In  certain  whole  “fraternities”  it  failed  to 
appear  at  all.  Why  this  was  so,  is  not  so  far  to  seek,  if 
we  pay  a little  attention  to  the  immediate  ancestry.  It 
cannot  be  claimed  that  these  lists  are  absolutely  complete 
or  correct.  Portraits  of  some  members  are  unknown,  un- 
obtainable, or  of  doubtful  authenticity.  Still,  they  stand 
for  what  they  are  worth,  and,  as  far  as  the  rough  outline 
of  such  a strange  peculiarity  as  this  is  concerned,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  but  that  they  approach  near  enough 
to  the  truth.  Thanks  to  the  kindness  of  Count  Theodor 
Zichy,  Austrian  ambassador  in  Munich,  who  owns  one 
of  the  largest  and  most  carefully  selected  collections  of 
engravings  of  royalty,  I have  been  able  to  place  on  record 
the  facial  outlines  of  a number  of  individuals,  whose 
actual  portraits  I have  been  unable  to  secure  for  my  own 
collection. 


190 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Spain,  23  Examples 

(For  the  first  four  generations,  see  Austria.) 

Fifth  generation;  children  of  Philip  and  Joanna  the  Mad. 
^Charles  V,  Emperor!514!,  marked. 

Ferdinand  I,  of  Austria!515!,  marked. 

*Mary,  Queen  of  Hungary!516!,  marked. 

Catherine,  Queen  of  Portugal!517!,  absent. 

Sixth  generation,  children  of  !514!. 

*Philip  II,  of  Spain!518!,  marked. 

*Mary!519!,  m.  Maximilian  II,  of  Austria,,  very  marked. 

* Joanna!520!,  absent. 

Margaret!521!,  absent. 

(Here  two  resemble  the  father  and  two  the  mother.) 

Seventh  generation,  children  of  !518!. 

Don  Carlos!523!,  slight. 

^Isabella!524!,  slight. 

Catherine!525!,  absent. 

*Philip  III!526!,  marked. 

(Here  the  “lip”  is  marked  in  Philip  III  and  not  in  the  other  chil- 
dren. He  alone  was  a child  of  the  fourth  marriage  of  Philip  II 
with  Anne!594!,  who  had  the  “ lip,”  and  was,  moreover,  inbred  from 
those  who  had  it.) 

Eighth  generation,  children  of  t526!. 

*Anne!527!,  absent.  (See  France.) 

*Philip  IV!528!,  very  marked. 

*Maria!529!,  slight. 

Charles!530!,  marked. 

^Ferdinand!531!,  marked. 

(Here  again  the  mother  was  from  the  house  of  Austria,  whose 
father!592!,  as  well  as  so  many  others,  had  the  Hapsburg  type.) 


* Portrait  in  this  volume. 


The  Hapsburg  Lip 


191 


Ninth  generation,  children  of  !528!. 

Balthazar!532!,  slight. 

♦Maria  Theresa!533!,  wife  of  Louis  XIV,  of  France,  absent. 
Margaret^534!,  marked. 

♦Charles  II,  of  Spain!533!,  very  marked. 

(The  last  two  children  had  as  a mother,  a daughter  of  ^Ferdinand 
III,  of  Austria.  The  first  two  did  not.  Thus  again  inbreeding 
accounts  for  the  persistence.  This  ends  the  Hapsburg  dynasty  in 
Spain.) 

Eleventh  generation,  grandchildren  of  l533!. 

♦Philip  V,  of  Spain!386!,  slight. 

(The  ancestors  of  Philip  V are  found  under  France,  where  there 
is  little  evidence  of  the  “ Up,  ” among  the  close  relations.) 

Twelfth  generation,  children  of  !388!. 

♦Ferdinand  Vi!536!,  slight. 

♦Charles  III,  of  Spain!537!,  marked. 

♦Philip  of  Parma!539!,  slight. 

(Here  the  perpetuation  was  in  part  due  to  Elizabeth  Farnese, 
mother  of  the  last  two.  She  had  the  Hapsburg  “lip,”  inherited  in 
the  twelfth  generation  through  ♦Charles  V.) 

Thirteenth  generation,  children  of  !537!. 

♦Maria  Louisa!543!,  slight.  (See  Austria.) 

♦Charles  IV,  of  Spain!545!,  slight. 

♦Ferdinand  I,  of  the  Two  Sicilies!546!,  absent. 

(The  diminution  of  the  peculiarity  was  due  to  outside  stock.) 

Fourteenth  generation,  children  of  !545!. 

Charlotte!549!,  absent. 

Maria  Louisa!530!,  absent. 

♦Ferdinand  VIl!551!,  marked. 

♦Don  Carlos!552!,  marked. 

♦Isabella!553!,  absent. 

Fourteenth  generation,  children  of  !546!. 

♦Maria  Theresa!560!,  absent. 

♦Francis!561!,  absent. 

♦Marie  Amelia!563!,  absent. 


* Portrait  in  this  volume. 


192 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Fifteenth,  sixteenth,  and  seventeenth  generations.  It  was  now 
practically  absent  in  the  Spanish  branches,  as  selection  no  longer 
maintained  the  type. 

Eighteenth  generation. 

Alfonso  XIII,  present  king  of  Spain,  marked. 

(This  is  an  inheritance  from  his  mother  and  the  Austrian  Haps- 
burgs,  where  it  is  still  now  and  then  in  full  force.) 

France,  7 Examples 

Seventh  generation. 

Marie  de  Medici,  wife  of  Henry  IV,  of  France,  slight. 
(Cosimo  de  Medici,  her  paternal  ancestor,  also  had  a large  lip, 
and  Henry  IV  himself  happened  to  have  a face  of  the  Hapsburg 
type,  though  not  descended  from  them.) 

Eighth  generation,  children  of  Henry  IV  and  Marie  de  Medici. 
*Louis  XIII,  of  France^374!,  marked. 

Ninth  generation,  children  of  Louis  XIII. 

*Louis  XIV!379!,  absent. 

*Philip  I,  of  Orleans!380!,  absent. 

Tenth  generation,  children  of  Louis  XIV,  absent. 

Eleventh  generation,  children  of  the  Dauphin. 

*Louis!585!,  absent. 

*Philip  V,  of  Spain!380!,  slight. 

Charles!387!,  slight. 

Twelfth  generation,  children  of!385!. 

*Louis  XV!388!,  slight. 

(The  “lip”  virtually  disappeared  in  France,  and  this  corresponds 
with  the  blood.) 

Thirteenth  generation,  children  of  Louis  XV. 

*Elizabeth  Louise!389!,  Duchess  of  Parma,  marked. 

Fourteenth  generation. 

^Charles  X!397!,  slight. 


* Portrait  in  this  volume. 


The  Hapsburg  Lip 


i93 


Austria,  31  Examples 

First  generation. 

Cymburga,  died  in  the  early  part  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
marked.  (According  to  history.) 

Second  generation. 

Frederick  III,  1415-1493,  marked.  (Portrait  in  National 
Museum,  Munich.) 

Third  generation. 

♦Maximilian  It510!,  absent. 

Sixth  generation,  children  of  Ferdinand  T515!  (see  Spain). 
♦Maximilian  IlC583I,  slight. 

Ferdinand!585!,  marked. 

Mary!588!,  very  slight. 

♦Charles!592!,  marked. 

♦Joanna!593!,  absent. 

Seventh  generation,  children  of  Maximilian  II!583!. 

Anne!594!,  marked. 

Rudolph!595!,  marked. 

♦Ernest!596!,  marked. 

♦Elizabeth!597!,  absent. 

Matthias!598!,  marked. 

Albert!600!,  marked. 

(Here  the  perpetuation  is  to  be  expected,  as  their  mother  was 
Mary!519!,  daughter  of  *Charles  V.  Both  parents  and  both  grand- 
fathers were  of  the  Hapsburg  type.) 

Seventh  generation,  children  of  Charles!592!. 

Marie  Christine!802!,  marked. 

♦Ferdinand  II!803!,  marked. 

Eleanor!604!,  slight. 

Leopold!607!,  marked. 

Charles!610!,  slight. 

(Here  all  resemble  the  father.) 


* Portrait  in  this  volume. 


i94 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Eighth  generation,  children  of  Ferdinand  II. 

^Ferdinand  Hit611!,  slight. 

Maria  Anne!812!,  slight. 

* Leopold  William!614!,  absent. 

(Their  mother,  Maria  Anne,  had  thick  lips.) 

Ninth  generation,  children  of  Ferdinand  III. 

^Ferdinand  IV,  slight. 

*Leopold  It®1®],  very  marked. 

Eleanor!817!,  marked. 

(The  first  of  the  above  had,  as  a mother,*  Maria!529!,  daughter  of 
Philip  III,  of  Spain.  The  mother  of  the  other  two,  Eleanor  of 
Mantua,  also  had  the  Hapsburg  lip.  Zichy  collection.) 

Tenth  generation,  children  of  Leopold  I. 

Mary  (Antonie),  marked.  (Halle’s  collection,  Munich.) 
Joseph  It619!,  absent. 

Mary  Elizabeth!820!,  absent. 

Mary  Anne!821!,  absent. 

Charles  VI!822!,  absent. 

Magdalene!623!,  absent. 

(The  rather  abrupt  absence  of  “lip”  among  the  last  five  is  due 
to  the  Palatine  blood  in  Leopold’s  third  marriage.  The  insanity 
was  also  removed  from  the  Austrian  house  at  the  same  time.) 

Eleventh  generation,  absent.  (Due  to  selection  and  to  outside 
blood.) 

Twelfth  generation,  children  of  *Maria  Theresa  and  *Francis,  of 
Lorraine,  absent.  (Again  evidently  due  to  selection.  The  psy- 
chosis was  also  eliminated.) 

Thirteenth  generation,  children  of  Leopold  lit834!. 

*Francis  II!640!,  absent. 

*Ferdinand!841l,  absent. 

*Maria  Anne!842!,  slight. 

*Charles!643!,  marked. 

*Joseph!fl44l,  absent. 


* Portrait  in  this  volume. 


FRANCIS  II,  EMPEROR^0]. 


JOSEPH  [CJ4]. 
Son  of  Leopold  II. 


RAINER  [«»], 
Son  of  Leopold  II. 


FERDINAND  V (!)  OF  AUSTRIA  [“=]. 


LEW!S[m}, 
Son  of  Leopold  II. 


FRANCIS  JOSEPH, 
Present  Emperor,  when  young. 


CHARLES  [°43], 

Celebrated  general  of  the  Napoleonic  wars. 


ALBERT,  BORN  1817,  DIED  1896. 
Son  of  Charles  [M3]. 


The  Hapsburg  Lip 


*95 


John!847!,  absent. 

♦Rainer!648!,  marked. 

♦Lewis!649!,  marked. 

(Here  some  resembled  the  father  and  some  the  mother  in  whom 
the  “lip”  was  present.  In  Charles!643!  and  Lewis!049!  it  seems  to 
be  a true  reversion  to  the  extreme  type  of  Leopold  I.  Also  all  the 
sons  but  one  were  troubled  with  epilepsy  and  convulsions.) 

Fourteenth  generation,  children  of  Francis  II!640!. 

Marie  Louise!651!,  absent. 

♦Ferdinand  V!652!,  b.  1793,  marked. 

Fourteenth  generation,  children  of  Charles!043!. 

Theresa,  1816-1867,  absent. 

♦Albert,  b.  1817-1896,  very  marked. 

Frederick,  1821-1847,  slight. 

Fifteenth  generation,  children  of  f652!. 

♦Francis  Joseph,  present  emperor,  marked.  (Early  portraits.) 

Fifteenth  generation,  children  of  Charles,  son  of  Charles!643!. 

Marie  Christina,  present  Queen  of  Spain,  marked. 

Sixteenth  generation,  children  of  Francis  Joseph. 

Marie  Valerie,  born  in  1868,  marked. 

Other  Countries,  9 Examples 
Seventh  generation. 

Anne,  d.  of  Ferdinand!585!,  of  Austria,  slight.  (Portrait  in 
Munich  National  Museum.) 

Sebastian,  King  of  Portugal,  marked.f 

Ninth  generation. 

Cosimo  III  de  Medici,  marked. 

Ferdinand  Marie,  of  Bavaria,  marked. 

Maximilian  Philip,  of  Bavaria,  marked. 

* Portrait  in  this  volume, 
f See  Stephen’s  “Story  of  Portugal,”  p.  242. 


196  Heredity  in  Royalty 

Eleventh  generation. 

Charles  Albert,  of  Bavaria,  1697-1745,  slight. 

Charles  Emanuel  III,  of  Savoy,  marked. 

Twelfth  generation. 

Marie  Anne,  of  Bavaria,  wife  of  Frederick  Christian,  of  Sax- 
ony, marked. 

Sixteenth  generation. 

Peter  II,  of  Portugal  and  Brazil,  b.  1825,  grandson  of  Francis 
II,  of  Austria,  marked. 

Besides  Spain,  France,  and  Austria,  we  meet  with  the 
Hapsburg  “lip”  in  various  other  families,  especially  in 
Bavaria.  A number  are  collected  and  given  above,  to 
swell  the  lists  and  show  how  a peculiarity  may  persist 
through  many  generations,  even  when  crossed  with  dif- 
ferent stocks.  It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that 
there  were  always  many  free  from  the  peculiarity,  rep- 
resenting the  normal,  and  that  probably  nowhere  did 
the  freak  persist  any  more  than  might  be  expected  from 
the  “Law  of  Ancestral  Heredity,”  providing,  of  course, 
that  averages  be  made  including  all  the  descendants. 

Thus  we  see  a tangible  physical  trait,  avowedly  due  to 
heredity,  obeying  the  same  principle  as  the  mental  and 
moral  qualities,  tending,  on  the  whole,  to  become  elimi- 
nated as  time  went  on,  still  skipping  about,  however,  and 
occasionally  reappearing  with  almost  equal  force  in  those 
who  inherited  it  at  all.  It  was  not  perpetuated  to  any 
great  extent,  except  in  the  Austrian  and  Spanish  families, 
and  here  alone  was  there  any  considerable  inbreeding. 

I have  examined  the  portraits  of  some  three  hundred 
other  members  of  the  royal  families,  and  find  the  same 
principles  evident  — that  one  sees  strong  general  facial 


The  Hapsburg  Lip 


197 


resemblance  usually  only  among  the  closely  related,  but 
that  striking  peculiarities  may  jump  a generation  or  two, 
and  then  reappear  in  some  of  the  descendants.  Also  one 
sees  that  general  blends  are  not  common,  but  that  each 
child  tends  to  “favor”  one  or  the  other  of  its  parents,  or, 
more  rarely,  a distant  ancestor. 

The  psychic  grades  for  the  Hapsburgs  are  based  on  all  the  combined  and 
averaged  opinions  of  the  following:  Biog.  Univers;  Allgemeine  deutsche  Biog.; 
Lippincott’s;  Wurtzbach,  Lexikon;  Coxe,  “House  of  Austria,”  by  index; 
Wraxall;  Vehse,  “ Court  of  Austria”;  Orsi;  Stillman,  “Union  of  Italy”;  Colletta, 
“Hist.  Naples”;  Wertheimer,  “Frauen  Kaisers  Franz”;  J.  F.  Bright,  “Maria 
Theresia”;  Ency.  Britannica.  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  XII 
Portugal 

[657]  — [741] 

A.  Its  Rise  to  World  Power.  B.  Its  Decline. 

The  early  history  of  Portugal,  like  that  of  Spain,  is 
largely  the  record  of  the  careers  of  its  hero-kings,  of  their 
brave  conquests  against  the  infidels,  their  stern  justice, 
and  almost  constant  aggrandizement  from  generation  to 
generation,  in  their  steady  curtailment  of  the  power  of 
the  nobles. 

These  peninsular  monarchies  present  a certain  parallel- 
ism in  which  they  furnish  some  curious  facts  of  interest 
in  the  philosophical  discussion  of  causation  in  history. 
It  can  be  shown  that,  for  nearly  a thousand  years,  the 
commercial  and  industrial  progress  made  by  both  Spain 
and  Portugal  has  been  directly  traceable  to  the  character 
of  its  chief  heads  of  state.  In  other  words,  we  find  nat- 
ural advance  under  able  and  vigorous  rulers,  while  under 
weak  sovereigns  we  find  decline.  To  prove  this  last 
statement  true  in  the  case  of  Portugal,  we  need  but  pre- 
pare a list  of  the  kings  or  regents  — with  their  charac- 
teristics and  mental  and  moral  grades  subjoined  — and 
then  in  a parallel  column,  note  the  advance  or  decline  of 
the  country.  In  the  following  list,  we  can  see  how  closely 

198 


Portugal  199 

the  ability  of  the  rulers  is  reflected  in  the  condition  of  the 
lands  over  which  they  governed.  The  moral  character 
seems  to  have  been  of  less  significance  * 


Characteristics  of  Ruler 

Condition  of  Country 

(8)  (8)  Henry  of  Burgundy^657]. 

Count  of  Portugal. 

Brave,  brilliant,  and  enterprising. 

IO94-III4. 

Founded  the  family  prestige. 

(8)  (3)  Theresa.  (Regent.) 

X Very  able  and  accomplished,  but 
her  character  was  bad.  She  was  vio- 
lent and  passionate. 

1114-1139. 

Dominions  were  built  up  and 
vastly  strengthened. 

(9)  (s)  Alfonso  lC658l. 

Great  warrior  and  founder  of  the  King- 
dom of  Portugal. 

“One  of  the  heroes  of  the  Middle  Ages.” 

1139-1185. 

Portugal  founded  as  a king- 
dom, and  territories  expanded. 

(7)  (5)  Sancho  it662!. 

Able  warrior  and  administrator.  Violent 
temper. 

1185-1211. 

Further  advance,  through  in- 
ternal improvements. 

(6)  (4)  Alfonso  lit667]. 

Able  and  vigorous,  but  harsh  and  tyran- 
nical. 

I2II-I223. 

Financial  gains. 

(4)  (4)  Sancho  lit672]. 

Weak  and  lazy. 

1223-1245. 

Intrigues,  quarrels,  and  decline. 

(7)  (3)  Alfonso  Hit673]. 

X “The  Wise.”  A great  warrior  and 
statesman,  but  an  unprincipled  tyrant. 

1245-1279. 

Prosperity. 

* I am  at  present  engaged  in  carrying  forward  a similar  research  to  in- 
clude all  countries  of  Europe.  Every  effort  is  being  made  to  eliminate,  as 
far  as  possible,  the  personal  equation  and  render  the  work  both  quantitative 
and  objective.  In  the  coming  publication  I expect  to  describe  in  detail  the 
methods  of  work,  and  hope  to  measure  mathematically  the  influence  of 
kings  in  different  countries  and  during  various  epochs  of  modern  history 
prior  to  the  nineteenth  century. 


200 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Characteristics  of  Ruler 

Condition  of  Country 

(9)  (5)  Dennis!676!. 

Called  “the  Laborer.”  Great  abilities. 
Ardent,  sensuous,  somewhat  cruel. 
Also  literary,  and  was  a poet. 

1279-1325. 

Country  made  great  advances, 
especially  in  agriculture  and  ad- 
ministration of  justice. 

(7)  (3)  Alfonso  IV!682!. 

X “The  Brave.”  Able,  cruel,  and  ty- 
rannical. 

I325_I3S7> 

Progress,  especially  against  the 
infidels. 

(7)  (s)  Peter  the  Rigorous!684!. 

Wise,  despotic,  and  severely  just  ruler. 

i3S7-i367- 

Short  reign,  commercial  treaty 
with  England. 

(3)  (3)  Ferdinand  i!686!. 

X Weak,  frivolous,  and  dishonorable. 

1367-1383. 

Decline.  Lisbon  besieged. 

Portugal  ravaged. 

(10)  (8)  John  It688!. 

One  of  the  greatest  and  best  of  all  royalty. 
A long  career  of  remarkable  achieve- 
ments. 

I3s4-i433- 

Portugal  greatly  developed. 
Beginnings  of  expansion  beyond 
the  seas. 

(7)  (8)  Edward!680!. 

Of  great  natural  ability.  Moderate  and 
enlightened  in  his  views.  Literary 
tastes. 

I433_I438- 

A short  and  disastrous  reign. 

(8)  (7)  Peter!090!.  (Regent.) 

Brilliant  qualities.  Excellent  character. 
Liberal,  accomplished. 

1438-1446. 

Progress. 

(4)  (4)  Alfonso  v!6B61. 

Weak,  and  had  little  practical  wisdom. 

1446-1481. 

Country  declined.  Finances 
were  wasted. 

(8)  (8)  John  II!700!. 

Called  “the  Perfect.”  A great  king. 

1481-1495. 

Marked  increase  in  trade  and 
prestige. 

(5)  (7)  Emanuel!703!. 

Called  “the  Fortunate.”  A weak  and 
mediocre  character. 

I495-I521- 

Portugal’s  greatest  days. 

Portugal 


201 


Characteristics  of  Ruler 

Condition  of  Country 

(3)  (4)  John  III^. 

A narrow  and  unenlightened  mind. 

x521— 1557* 

Territorial  increase  and  na- 
tional supremacy  maintained,  but 
the  germs  of  decay  were  begin- 
ning to  show  themselves.  Finan- 
cial troubles.  Inquisition  estab- 
lished. 

(7)  (5)  Catherine,  of  Spaint517].  (Regent.) 
Intellectual  and  energetic.  Bigoted  and 
unpopular. 

1557-1562. 

Conditions  remained  about  the 

same. 

(2)  (2)  Cardinal  Henry^709]. 

X (Regent.)  A vain,  weak,  and  mean 
character. 

1562-1568. 

Decay. 

(3)  (5)  Sebastian. 

Ambitious,  adventurous,  rash,  and  big- 
oted. Tyrannical,  melancholic,  an  un- 
balanced and  disordered  mind. 

I568-I578- 

Disastrous  war  in  Africa.  Fur- 
ther decay  in  national  strength. 

(2)  (2)  Cardinal  Henry]709!. 

XA  vain,  weak,  and  mean  character. 
He  was  now,  furthermore,  old  and  dy- 
ing. 

is?8-^80- 

Country  in  turmoil  and  cor- 
ruption. 

Sixty  Years’  Captivity. 

Portugal  under  Spanish  rule.  Disaster  for  the  country. 
The  people  impoverished. 


(5)  (2)  Philip  Ilf518],  of  Spain. 

i58o_i598- 

X Feeble  judgment.  Mean  and  wicked 

Internal  decay  of  Portugal  con- 

character. 

tinued,  though  its  outward  pres- 
tige remained  about  the  same. 

(2)  (5)  Philip  Hit52®],  of  Spain. 

1598-1621. 

Indolent,  weak-minded;  tendency  to  mel- 

Financial  exhaustion,  and  mer- 

ancholia. 

candle  decline  in  the  East. 

(5)  (2)  Philip  IVf828],  of  Spain. 

1621-1640. 

XLazy,  weak,  licentious.  Literary  tastes. 

Disasters  and  discontent. 
Further  financial  and  commer- 
cial decline. 

202 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Characteristics  of  Ruler 

Condition  of  Country 

House  of  Braganza. 

(4)  (5)  John  IVt™]. 

Indolent  and  pleasure-loving.  A nega- 
tive character.  (His  remarkable 
queen,  Louisa  de  Guzman,  was  the 
real  head  of  affairs.) 

1640-1656. 

Portugal’s  spirit  reawakened. 
National  defense  and  resistance 
were  promoted. 

(9)  (6)  Louisa  de  Guzman.  (Regent.) 
Energetic  and  able.  A remarkable 
woman. 

1656-1662. 

Portugal’s  position  somewhat 
strengthened. 

(1)  (1)  Alfonso  Vlt713!. 

XAn  imbecile,  with  uncontrollable  vices 
and  excesses. 

1662-1668. 

A period  of  wars.  The  Portu- 
guese, on  the  whole,  successful. 
Internal  affairs  in  a bad  condi- 
tion. 

(5)  (4)  Peter  lit714!. 

Ambitious,  intriguing,  unprincipled. 

1668-1706. 

The  country  was  strengthened 
in  some  ways,  but  declined  in 
others.  It  remained  unprosper- 
ous. 

(5)  (6)  John  VC715]. 

Good  character,  literary  tastes.  Super- 
ficial and  extravagant. 

1706-1750. 

Remained  stagnant. 

(5)  (8)  Joseph^721]. 

An  excellent  character.  (Supported  the 
great  minister  Pombal  to  whom  the  re- 
forms were  due.) 

1750-1777. 

Reforms  and  internal  improve- 
ments. 

(4)  (6)  Maria  it723!. 

Good  disposition,  but  weak  intellect,  and 
finally  became  insane.  Ruled  jointly 
with  (3)  (4)  Peter  lilt721!,  her  uncle  and 
husband,  a weakling. 

1777-1788. 

Deplorable  state  of  affairs 
again. 

(3)  (5)  John  VlC727].  (Regent  and  King.) 
Weak,  suspicious,  melancholic,  eccentric. 

1788-1826. 

Involved  in  the  Napoleonic 
wars.  Disintegration  and  dis- 
grace. 

Portugal 


203 


Characteristics  or  Ruler 

Condition  of  Country 

(5)  (6)  Peter  IV!730!. 

Good  character;  high  temper,  but  excel- 
lent heart. 

1826-1827. 

Short  reign. 

(4)  (2)  Miguel!372!.  (Regent.) 

XExtremely  violent  and  cruel. 

1827-1834. 

A reign  of  terror.  Darkest 
days  for  Portugal. 

(5)  (5)  Maria  II  (da  Gloria)!734!. 

A quiet,  domestic  character.  Not  re- 
markable in  any  traits. 

1834-1853. 

Country  involved  in  disastrous 
party  struggles. 

(6)  (7)  Ferdinand  II.  (Regent.) 

Popular.  Literary  and  artistic  tastes. 

i853-i85S- 

Agriculture,  commerce,  and 
literature  revived. 

(7)  (10)  Peter  v!738!. 

Honest,  liberal,  self-sacrificing.  Well-be- 
loved. 

1855-1861. 

Improvement  continued. 

(6)  (7)  Louis  i!739!. 

Good  character.  Poetical,  literary',  and 
artistic  tastes. 

1861-1889. 

Prosperous  and  peaceful  reign. 

Charles  I. 

Promises  to  be  a good,  though  not  a re- 
markably energetic  or  able  king. 

1889-. 

Within  recent  years,  the  coun- 
try has  improved  in  many  way's. 
Finances  are  still  in  a bad  con- 
dition. Much  political  discon- 
tent prevails. 

A.  Its  Rise  to  World  Power 

The  first  three  leaders,  Henry,  of  Burgundy,  Theresa, 
and  Alfonso  I,  all  of  high  ability  (8)  (8)  and  (9),  may  be 
regarded  as  the  founders  of  Portugal’s  unity  as  a nation. 
During  the  formative  period,  and  period  of  growth,  up  to 
the  time  of  Portugal’s  apogee,  it  will  be  observed  that 
only  three  weak  and  incompetent  rulers  sat  upon  the 


204 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


throne.  These  were  Sancho  II  (4),  Ferdinand  I (3), 
and  Alfonso  V (4).  This  is  against  thirteen  able  and 
vigorous  kings,  several  of  whom  are  in  the  highest  grades. 
During  the  reign  of  each  one  of  the  three  weak  sovereigns, 
we  find  decline.  Progress  marks  the  reign  of  every  strong 
king,  with  one  single  exception.  It  can  be  seen  that  the 
period  of  Edward,  which  occupied  the  five  years  following 
1433,  was  one  of  disaster,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
king  himself  possessed  high  capacity  and  character. 
Even  this  disaster  may  be  traced  to  the  royal  family.  It 
was  due  to  the  misdirected  efforts  of  Ferdinand[694],  a 
brother  of  the  king,  who  instigated  a war  against  the  infi- 
dels in  Africa ; a campaign  which  brought  only  dire  calam- 
ities on  all  concerned.  In  contrast  with  this  stands  the 
work  of  another  brother  of  the  king,  Prince  Henry,  a 
man  of  very  different  and  very  superior  intellectual  ca- 
pacity. Among  the  most  important  of  Portugal’s  achieve- 
ments were  the  circumnavigation  of  Africa  and  the  be- 
ginning of  Asiatic  trade.  Although  Prince  Henry  never 
made  any  of  the  voyages  himself,  which  led  to  the  open- 
ing up  of  this  great  trade  route,  it  is  conceded  by  all  that 
in  his  genius  and  perseverance  are  to  be  found  both  the 
initiation  and  completion  of  this  important  event  in  the 
history  of  the  world. 

Furthermore,  in  support  of  this  theory  of  the  impor- 
tance of  royalty,  in  the  history  of  Portugal,  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  under  the  greatest  kings  of  all,  Alfonso  I, 
Dennis,  John  I,  and  John  II,  the  little  kingdom  made 
her  most  substantial  gains. 

Having  seen  the  influence  of  the  great  kings  during 
the  constructive  period,  we  now  come  to  Portugal’s  glori- 
ous days,  in  the  reigns  of  Emanuel  and  John  III,  1495- 


Portugal 


205 


1557.  Here  we  do  not  find  that  the  kings  themselves 
were  gifted.  In  fact,  they  were  quite  otherwise.  The 
explanation  is  that  the  impetus  already  achieved  was  so 
gr6at  that  for  a time  national  degeneration  did  not  begin, 
or  at  least  did  not  show  itself  under  the  gloss  of  outward 
splendor.  It  was  during  the  reign  of  John  III,  however, 
that  the  germs  of  decay  began  to  work,  and  much  of  the 
subsequent  decline  is  to  be  traced  to  his  short-sighted 
and  narrow  policy. 

The  same  is  true,  to  a certain  extent,  of  the  govern- 
ment of  Emanuel.  He  expelled  the  Jews  from  Portugal, 
“although  they  were  the  richest  and  most  useful  class  of 
people  in  the  kingdom;  ” and  it  was  during  the  reign  of 
John  III  that  the  fatal  Inquisition  was  established,  and 
corruption  in  India  became  rampant.  As  may  be  seen, 
the  subsequent  rulers  of  Portugal  were  little  or  nothing 
in  character  and  capacity.  I do  not  claim  that  the  fall 
of  Portugal  was  entirely  due  to  the  change  in  the  quality 
of  her  rulers,  but  I do  claim  that  all,  or  nearly  all,  may 
be  explained  on  purely  Darwinian  principles,  as  a ques- 
tion of  race,  and  naturally  inherited  ability,  due  to  selec- 
tion alone. 

At  this  period  of  the  country’s  history,  a great  depopu- 
lation set  in.  The  most  energetic  and  vigorous  went  out 
to  the  colonies,  and  either  died  here,  or  intermarried 
with  the  natives  and  never  returned.  Besides  this,  slaves 
were  imported  from  Africa  into  Portugal  in  such  numbers 
that,  “even  in  Lisbon  itself,  they  outnumbered  the  free- 
men, by  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.”  These 
biological  factors,  in  connection  with  weak  rulers  (whose 
weaknesses  were  due  to  heredity),  are  themselves  sufficient 
to  account  for  Portugal’s  decline.  It  is  untenable  to 


206 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


consider  that  the  wealth  and  power  itself  produced  dis- 
integration, as  is  so  often  assumed  by  those  who  contend 
that  all  nations,  like  families,  degenerate,  from  the  effects 
of  pomp  and  luxury. 

B.  Decline 

Beginning  with  the  reign  of  Cardinal  Henry,  in  1562, 
and  concluding  with  the  advent  of  Ferdinand  II,  of  the 
house  of  Saxe-Gotha,  1853,  we  deal  with  an  era  of  almost 
steady  national  consumption. 

During  this  period  there  were  eighteen  rulers,  fourteen 
of  whom  were  weak  or  incapable.  Only  one,  Louisa  de 
Guzman,  was  a high-grade  personage.  She  was  in  power 
for  but  six  years,  1656-1662.  Her  influence,  however, 
had  always  been  great  during  the  life  of  her  husband;  and 
the  revolution  of  1640,  which  threw  off  from  Portugal 
the  yoke  of  Spain,  was  largely  brought  about  through  her 
leadership. 

In  only  one  of  the  eighteen  reigns  do  we  find  a condi- 
tion of  affairs  other  than  might  be  expected  from  the 
qualities  of  the  ruler.  This  was  during  the  reign  of 
Joseph,  1750-1777,  when  great  and  active  reforms  were 
instituted.  This  was  partially  due  to  the  good  character 
of  the  king.  He  had  the  sense  to  appoint  a very  able 
man,  Pombal,  to  the  post  of  chief  minister,  and  to  this 
sole  shining  figure  in  the  gallery  of  Portuguese  statesmen, 
the  internal  reforms  were  due.  With  this  single  excep- 
tion, Portugal  has  proved  herself  totally  incapable  of 
producing  any  men  to  whom,  in  years  of  peril,  she  could 
turn  for  a guiding  hand.  If  the  needs  of  the  time  call 
forth  Washingtons,  Grants,  and  Bismarcks,  why  have 
none  come  forward  in  Portugal?  It  has  been  the  same 


Portugal  207 

in  Spain,  and  was  for  many  years  the  same  in  modem 
Italy. 

With  the  change  in  blood  brought  about  in  the  marriage 
of  Maria  da  Gloria,  we  find  the  country  doing  somewhat 
better  under  the  liberality  and  enlightenment  of  the  fam- 
ily of  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. 

Thus,  for  forty  reigns,  we  observe  but  four  exceptions 
to  the  parallelism  between  the  condition  of  the  country 
and  the  mental  characteristics  of  the  kings.  Such  a 
series  is,  of  course,  out  of  the  possibilities  of  chance  coin- 
cidence. What  it  really  shows  more  than  anything  else, 
is  the  relative  low  ability  of  the  nobles  and  the  people. 

For  men  will  always  get  what  they  desire,  and  at  the 
same  time  have  the  ability  to  obtain' 

How  different  is  the  story  of  Portugal  from  that  of 
England!  From  a despicable  and  vicious  John,  the  nobles 
demanded  and  obtained  a Magna  Charta.  From  tyrant 
Stuarts,  England  came  forth  freer  than  before,  and  under 
stupid  Georges  she  expanded  into  the  greatest  power  in 
the  world. 

Having  thus  shown  the  preponderating  influence  of  the 
kings  on  the  course  of  Portuguese  history,  it  remains  now 
to  see  how  these  great  men  were  engendered,  from  whence 
came  this  remarkable  fine  of  sovereigns,  at  first  strong, 
and  then  correspondingly  weak. 

A.  The  Rise  to  World  Power 

The  father  of  the  first  of  the  line,  Henry,  of  Burgundy, 
was  himself  of  the  house  of  Capet,  a Frenchman  by  birth, 
and  typical  knight  of  the  crusading  period.  Whether 
his  abilities  were  a new  variation,  or  a reversion  to  his 
great-grandfather,  Hugh  Capet,  or  largely  the  product  of 


208  Heredity  in  Royalty 

the  age  in  which  he  lived,  in  one  particular  case  like  his, 
we  cannot  say.  That  he  was  not  much  the  result  of  the 
third  supposition,  is  rendered  probable  from  the  fact  that 
his  talents  were  so  well  transmitted,  something  not  to  be 
expected  in  characteristics  acquired  from  the  environ- 
ment. 

In  the  chart  opposite,  we  see  that  his  son,  Henry,  of 
Burgundy[657],  had  a brilliant  queen,  who  was  herself  the 
daughter  of  a great  king  of  Castile.  From  this  union 
sprang  Alfonso  I,  the  founder  of  Portugal.  A glance  at 
this  chart  and  the  next  will  show  that  none  of  the  early 
kings  of  Portugal  were  really  Portuguese  in  origin,  as  far 
as  blood  was  concerned.  We  find  much  of  the  best  of 
old  Spain,  as  well  as  France,  Savoy,  England,  and  Aus- 
tria, represented  in  the  pedigree,  but  nothing  from  Por- 
tugal itself. 

The  marriage  of  Alfonso  I would  tend  to  reduce  to 
mediocrity  the  stock  already  brilliant.  Still,  fortunately, 
two  of  the  three  children,  including  the  next  king,  Sancho 
I,  took  from  the  strong  side  of  the  pedigree. 

Dulce,  the  mother  of  the  next  generation,  was  a queen 
with  good  qualities,  and  a daughter  of  very  excellent 
stock.  The  children,  numbered  t665]  to  [671],  give  us  no 
remarkable  names,  though  they  average  above  the  mean. 

Alfonso  IF667],  the  son  who  became  king,  was  well 
able  to  cope  with  the  times,  and  his  marriage  was  a de- 
cidedly strong  one.  He  had  but  two  adult  children,  the 
oldest  being  the  first  weak  king  of  Portugal.  Weak  kings 
stood  little  chance  of  remaining  in  power,  and  Sancho 
II[672]  was  deposed  by  his  more  vigorous  brother,  Alfonso 
IIP6731. 

Here  the  line  continues  from  its  strongest  stem,  and  is 


Portugal 


209 


Henry,  of  Burgundy. 
Great-grandson  of 
Hugh  Capet,  and 
typical  knight  of  the 
old  French  school. 


(8)  (8)  Henry,  of  Burgundy[657]. 
Count  of  Portugal. 
Brave,  brilliant,  and 
enterprising. 

He  founded  the  family 
prestige. 


(8)  (5)  Alphonso  VI,  Ximena 
of  Castile.  Nunes. 

Able  warrior, 
vigorous 
character. 


(8)  (3)  Theresa. 

X (Natural daughter.) 
Very  able  and 
accomplished,  but 
her  character  was 
bad.  Violent  and 
passionate. 


Humbert  n,  Gisela, 
the  Strong,  of  Burgundy, 
of  Savoy. 

Of  average 
distinction. 


Amadeus  ill,  of  Savoy. 
1080-1149. 

Of  average  distinction. 


Guido  II, 
of  Vienna. 


Matilda, 
of  Vienna. 
“Obscure.” 


(9)  (5)  Alfonso  I,  of  Portugal  f658].  Matilda. 

Great  warrior  and  founder  of  “ Obscure.” 

the  kingdom  of  Portugal. 

“ One  of  the  heroes  of  the 
Middle  Ages.” 


(7)  (5)  Sancho  I,  of  Portugal  f6^2]. 
Able  warrior  and  administra- 
tor. Many  generous  and 
noble  virtues. 


Urraca  [663]. 

Undistinguished. 

Married  Ferdinand  II,  of  Leon. 


(8)  (5)  Theresa  Matilda  [664]. 

“ Remarkable  wisdom  and 
prudence  in  government.” 
Married  Philip,  Count  of 
Flanders. 


(9)  (5)  Alfonso  I.  Matilda 

Great  warrior  of  Savoy, 

and  founder  of  “ Obscure.” 
the  kingdom 
of  Portugal. 


Raymond 
Berenguer. 
Able  and 
moderate. 

His  father  was 
of  the  same 
excellent  type. 


Petronilia. 

“ Obscure.” 
Dau.  of 
Ramiro 
“ the  Monk  ” 
of  Aragon. 


(7)  (5)  Sancho  I t662].  Dulce. 

Able  warrior  and  “A  kindly  and 

administrator.  pious  princess.” 

Violent  temper. 


(7)  (8)  Sancho  III,  Blanche, 
of  Castile.  Good 

Able  king.  qualities. 


Henry  II, 
of  England. 
One  of  the 
greatest  of 
English  kings 


(7)  (7)  Alfonso  VI 1 1 C450], 
the  Noble,  of 
Castile. 

Excellent  qualities. 


Eleanor 
Plantagenet. 
“Virtuous, 
highly  eulogized.” 


(6)  (4)  Alfonso  II  C667]. 

Able  and  vigorous,  but 
harsh  and  tyrannical. 


(5)  (7)  Urraca. 

A princess  “ of  great 
merit.”  Her  two  sisters, 
Berengaria  and 
Blanche,  of  Castile, 
are  among  the  most 
illustrious  queens  in 
modern  history. 


(4)  (4)  Sancho  II  [672]. 
Weak  and  lazy. 


(7)  (3)  Alfonso  III  [6T3] 

X “the  Wise.” 

A great  warrior  and 
statesman,  but  a 
unprincipled  tyrant. 


210 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


ss 


<D  (j 

qj 

Os  , 

(U 

p-l 


~c?2  p § § 


3*0  . 

s-S 


< £ < o 


J3  *1*  "8  tii 
g S 6 .5  __ 
2S  » B.  C 

®w  e-g.s 


xl-L 

© rt  *3  rt  © . 

83*  * s e-s 

° u “o5<jS- 

.—  i~  .S  -G  G -t-.  !_ 

<!r*  £ rt  ^ U 


»>■  qj  T3 

•—  ~ g 

_o^5  01 

•a  & « 

«n  >- 
P ^ rt 
nJ  -+h  »r 
C/2  OPQ 


P^ 


W)  ‘ 


* 

§ s|Sk- 
00 
OO 


O b >/3 
• ® q>^  a> 


>- 
qj  O 

62 


rt  O « Mu 

£ S^-sa  m. 

o«2  u«c*." 

»_  k-  Cu  ^ ™-u  *- 
«'<“<  fbin'C 

■s-s2<  tj-S^'S. 

PaO  O - m2  o rt  w 


gX  £j)  E «J 

h|  g S-B  £3 
oJ  M-g  JS* 

rt  ~ ° OJM  ° 

3 « S -H  !l  mC3  o - 

w^i<;=  o ^ rt  w3 


C >* 

6’§§ 
o S 
_-q  g g 
n S «- 

<u 


WP* 


"Sb  6' 
gU  o 
oaS?< 


T3 

<L> 

£ 

! c.g  < 


• ^ G 

0>  tJ-d  g 

w^rtpd._^ 

o-c  &J-  ©<« 

22  3 C >a 

<2  <J-Cto-0  3-^ 


J rt  rQ 


~®h-l 

C <u 

= •5 

c*  w 

Q 


rt  § ^ O rt 

1>  -C  yj 

o<  S<  5 


3 3 

o"-' 

s-s 

M§ 

<*  qT 


i 


G 

o> 

.S*s 

sis, 


c^-mb  a & 
h'P  «.a  8 
£gu==> 

SSo<« 


> >-3 

^ rt  3 
-8«6‘ 

oS“ 
isj’ixi 
<C:  < 


Portugal 


21 1 


strengthened  by  some  of  the  ablest  stock  of  Spain.  There- 
fore, Dennis[675],  the  next  king  (see  pedigree,  opposite), 
one  of  seven  children  and  a great  promoter  of  Portugal’s 
advance,  is  not  unexpected.  He  was  the  only  one  of  the 
seven  in  his  own  “fraternity”  to  rank  in  a high  grade, 
and  was  probably  a reversion  on  the  exceptional  stock 
so  full  of  strength,  and  almost  devoid  of  weakness. 

Dennis  himself  married  to  bring  in  stock  above  the 
average,  as  the  following  chart  shows;  and  in  a family  of 
many  children  we  should  undoubtedly  have  found  some 
great  genius. 

There  were,  however,  but  two  offspring,  one  mediocre 
and  the  other  Alfonso  IVf682],  “the  Brave,”  under  whom 
Portugal  made  further  progress,  especially  against  the 
infidels. 

The  next  pedigree  formed  on  the  marriage  of  Alfonso 
IV[882],  like  every  one  before  it,  contains  many  characters 
above  the  average  of  intellectual  grades;  and  again  out  of 
two  children  we  get  one  with  marked  ability,  Peter  the 
Rigorous  (7)  (5). 

Among  the  four  children  of  Peter  the  Rigoroust8843,  we 
find  two  mediocrities, — one  weak  son,  Ferdinand  I[885], 
and  one  extremely  able,  natural  son,  John  It8883. 

John  I,  called  the  Great,  may  best  be  considered  a re- 
version to  Dennis[873],  or  other  very  able  ancestors.  He 
was  one  of  the  greatest  of  all  modern  royalty.  We  see  on 
the  next  chart  another  remarkable  pedigree.  His  chil- 
dren had,  on  their  mother’s  side,  the  best  of  the  royal 
blood  of  England.  Thus  the  great  voyages  and  discov- 
eries which  were  begun  by  Henry  the  Navigator,  and 
which  find  their  first  cause  in  the  ability  and  character 
of  Henry,  are  in  turn  to  be  ascribed  in  part  to  England, 


212 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


which  furnished  half  the  blood  of  Henry.  Even  as  late 
as  this,  only  a quarter  of  the  stock  of  Portugal’s  royal 
family  was  from  Portugal  itself,  and  no  native  blood  was 
introduced  until  John  I,  who  was  half  Portuguese  on  his 
mother’s  side.  All  the  kings  were,  of  course,  Portuguese 
in  one  sense,  but  not  as  regards  ultimate  origin  of  blood. 

Besides  Henry,  Portugal  was  much  indebted  to  his 
brilliant  brother,  Peter[690J.  The  eldest  son,  Edward[88% 
who  became  the  next  sovereign,  was  also  a man  of  high 
ability,  and  an  attractive  personality  from  every  point 
of  view. 

The  marriage  of  Edward[689i  with  Eleanor,  daughter 
of  Ferdinand  I,  of  Aragon,  may  be  considered  mediocre. 
Their  son,  Alfonso  V,  was  one  of  the  few  weak  kings  in 
the  early  history  of  Portugal,  but  in  his  son,  John  IP7001, 
called  “the  Perfect,”  was  another  very  able  king,  to 
whom  much  is  due  in  the  construction  of  this  dominion, 
at  this  time  destined  to  take  a foremost  place  among 
the  powers  of  the  world.  He  was  certainly  an  instance 
of  heredity,  for  his  maternal  grandfather  was  the  already 
mentioned  Peter[690],  one  of  the  brilliant  sons  of  John  the 
Great. 

Thus  ends  the  list  of  the  great  kings  of  Portugal.  Par- 
allel with  the  growth  of  the  country,  we  find  these  emi- 
nent rulers.  Parallel  with  their  appearance,  we  find 
remarkably  great  pedigrees,  and  these  individuals  com- 
posing the  pedigrees  lived  in  all  parts  of  Europe.  Hence 
the  ancestors  themselves  could  not  be  the  product  of  any- 
thing going  on  in  Portugal.  There  were  many  others,  at 
the  time,  belonging  to  European  royalty,  who  were  weak, 
but  these  did  not  happen  to  be  the  direct  progenitors  of 
the  royal  line  of  Portugal. 


Portugal 


213 


a 

C 

B 


in 


Cr* 

p 


p 

3 

P- 


r.^s  gw 

r*  1/3  *—  O ^ tLl 

G>  < Jp'  c-  C GT9  $ 

p S*=r«  a 3 S| 

><  S « w S' 5.  O- 

sr " S rc  s:  a 

w O-  P — « 


" C9-»g 

1 f 3 re |=5 

3 p o na  — • p , 

TD  — Z"  ft  O 3 © 


2 


as 

>1 

2.P 

s 2. 

r orp 


W 


P 

D- 


P 3 «L0rp  £■  S>  P 

erg  5*«  2L.1  o- 
C £ — 3 (X  *o  < 
C n^c'S.  o S 

" o 1 g.  X_”  o 

■=VCTQ  3“ 


f? 

< 

n OP 
p P 


-3 

-3 


==-s  §a  hs,^ 

£»5oo  =•_  = 
re  =-oc  3 2 #; 
_.  p C 2p  3.  ~ 5 -3 
re  ■»  = =rO<£ 
o — D-  2 

S aa'3  a 

D-^OrP  g 


-pen  — 

c — - 

3 *-H 

CL- 


p >croT' 

ZZ.%  3^ 
<i  O g* 

P s o O 3 

3.r>  P J*"“ 

_ rt  p ~ a r3- 

< 3 IT0  » 

2 ft  o®3  1 

2 -I  v<  2*  ■ 

g o SLp 


n ,_.  o 

S-  S" 

"CT  p ctpv 
J.cro 
C (l  o'" 

w - c 
P cn 

1.8.' 


•DtUSH 
o o>  -•  rr 
2o  w » 
C 3 3 p 

Ofp  Orp  3.  w 
C O w P 
(5  H 


■<  > ?> 

-i  cr  o C3 

a?  tc§ 

l-«Ss 

PC  O 
• £•  <; 
p ,_s 


S 1% 

-3  o’ 2. 

P_q  * 


P p * 

3 3 
— o 
‘C  cr 


g dg  >° 


P O"  3 rr 

aja^ 

O-Q  < 

o ?r- 


»« 


= 3 3 
is'  S.'i 


8 

5- 

n> 


=r 
o - 

C 0-P 

S 

O- 


P < 
WC«  2 


M'fl 

» 3- 

< 31 
P -O 


3 P 


co  


n 

^ cr 


p o 


S°w|n  =-H2 

g l-g’as  g s §■■ 

w w w ~a.?  o S 

' larer§l 

Dp  o-  . 

^ p § 


) c- 

o JH 

p*  p cs 


5’3'S  « 3- 

-Q.M  5.0  O 
p z.  ~ ^ ^ 

*<  i^rro 

• — > O p p 

S-3  2 E. 

3gS>r 


r§ 

^ O 
-3  — _ 


n ccrp'^°3- 

J T3  O 3 P 

*£-3 


P 3 HHO 

erg 

"Ss  3 I 

3.  c_P  p 
w 3-  ?r  3 
• 3 ^ 
n ere 


•O  -0^.0 

S.w=a: 

o 52-  3 i®  p 

2 3 

2 o 
?r*  3 n>  £ 

3 n>  "J. 

-•  CL.  *E.O 

”p  Si  •■' 


Edward  III,  (8)  (6)  Philippa,  (7)  (8)  Henry, 


214 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


John  II  left  no  adult  descendants.  EmanueK703],  the 
next  king,  and  his  two  sisters,  were  mediocrities,  a fact  to 
be  expected,  as  the  father  was  an  “obscure”  brother  of 
Alfonso  V,  and  their  mother  an  “obscure”  daughter 
of  Johnt693],  the  mediocre  and  undistinguished  son  of 
John  I[088b  Thus  greatness  was  now  remote. 

EmanueK703]  married  a daughter  of  Ferdinand  and 
Isabella,  of  Aragon  and  Castile,  so  the  next  generation 
had  at  least  two  remarkable  grandparents.  Moreover, 
there  were  six  children  to  reach  maturity.  We  might 
expect  one  genius  and  one  with  mental  unbalance  to 
correspond  to  Joanna  the  Mad,  their  aunt;  and  Isabella, 
who  was  insane,  the  mother  of  the  great  Isabella.  What 
we  do  find  is  given  below. 


(3)  (4)  John  III  [’<*]. 
A narrow  and 
unenlightened 
mind. 


(7)  (8)  Louis  [707]. 
Excellent 
character. 
Adored  for  his 
many  virtues. 


(5)  (7)  Isabella  [705]. 
Very  attractive 
and  virtuous, 
m.  Charles  V,  of 
Spain. 

Alfonso  [708]. 

“ Obscure.” 


(6)  (6)  Beatrixf706]. 
Normal. 


(2)  (2)  Henry  [709]. 

X Mean  and  base. 


B.  Decline 

Unfortunately  for  Portugal,  John  III  and  Henry  both 
came  upon  the  throne,  while  Louist707},  who  was  the 
flower  of  the  family,  though  he  lived  forty-nine  years, 
died  before  his  elder  brother  John.  This  “fraternity” 
does  not  give  us  exactly  what  we  should  expect.  We 
might  count  here  two  exceptions.  We  do,  however,  find 
strong  variations  corresponding  with  the  pedigree. 

The  next  king,  Sebastian,  whose  mind  was  unbalanced, 
was  a clear  enough  case  of  heredity.  Though  his  father, 
John,  son  of  t704],  who  died  young,  was  considered  a 


Portugal 


21 5 


prince  of  the  highest  promise,  his  mother  was  of  the 
tainted  stock  of  Spain,  a sister  of  Philip  II  of  that  coun- 
try. Sebastian,  moreover,  had  the  Hapsburg  “lip.” 

After  this,  Portugal  came  for  sixty  years  under  the 
dominion  of  Spain,  and  the  characters  of  the  three  worth- 
less Philips  are  accounted  for  in  the  chapter  dealing  with 
that  country. 

In  the  house  of  Braganza  we  start  with  John  IV[711], 
mediocre  and  from  mediocre  stock.  His  queen,  Louisa 
de  Guzman,  whose  influence  was  paramount  during  this 
period,  is  unaccounted  for  by  heredity,  except  as  a muta- 
tion or  new  variety,  since  her  stock  was  also  “obscure.” 
Three  children  were  born  from  this  union,  none  of  whom 
equaled  their  mother. 

Alfonso  VT713],  the  next  king,  an  imbecile  with  uncon- 
trollable vices  and  excesses,  was  undoubtedly  such  from  a 
constitutional  cause,  though  he  does  not  appear  an  ex- 
ample of  the  ordinary  course  of  heredity.  His  deficiencies 
are  said  to  have  been  the  result  of  a paralytic  stroke 
received  in  early  childhood. 

The  next  generation,  John  W15],  and  four  others,  were 
the  children  of  Peter  lit714],  rather  mediocre,  and  Maria 
Sophia,  of  Palatine.  In  John  V we  find  a good  normal 
character  and  nothing  more.  He  married  Marie  Anne[621], 
a daughter  of  Leopold  I,  of  Austria.  On  turning  to 
Austria  we  find  her  a good  character,  though  poorly  en- 
dowed mentally,  with  the  grades  (4)  (6).  Her  mother 
was  of  exceptional  mental  capacity,  but,  aside  from  this, 
the  pedigree  would  not  be  strong. 

There  were  but  three  children  in  the  next  generation: 
Barbara[720],  Joseph[721],  and  Peter  III[722].  Joseph  (5) 
(8)  proved  an  excellent  type,  while  Peter  III  was  a weak- 


2l6 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


ling,  and  Barbara  became  insane,  probably  inherited  from 
the  house  of  Austria. 

The  next  generation  gives  us  three  daughters  of  medi- 
ocre or  of  inferior  capacity,  and  should  not  call  for  more 
than  this,  as  their  mother  was  a daughter  of  Philip  V (2) 
(4),  of  Spaint386],  whose  stock  was  also  poor.  (See 
France.)  The  oldest  daughter,  Maria  It723],  married  her 
uncle,  the  weak  Peter  IIlc722].  This  incestuous  union  cer- 
tainly should  produce  no  good  results.  There  was  but 
one  adult  offspring,  John  VB727l  He  was  “weak,  sus- 
picious, melancholic,  and  eccentric,”  and  did  his  fair 
share  toward  hastening  the  downfall  of  Portugal. 

The  next  alliance  drew  in  again  the  worst  of  the  neu- 
rotic Spanish  blood  in  Carlotta  (5)  (2)[54%  a daughter  of 
Charles  IV,  of  Spain.  The  six  children  give  us  all  the 
variations  to  be  expected;  two  notoriously  bad,  and  none 
with  high  intellectual  gifts.  The  different  characteristics 
of  the  children  may  be  seen  below. 


(7)  (6)  Theresa  [728] . (4)  (8)  Isabella  [729]. 

Good  character  in  Excellent 

many  ways,  but  an  character, 

intriguer.  Not  gifted. 


(5)  (6)  Peter  IV  [730]. 
Good  character. 
High  temper  but 
excellent  heart. 


(6)  (5)  Francis  [731]- 
Ambitious  and 
haughty. 

An  intriguer. 


(4)  (2)  Miguel  [632]. 

X Extremely  violent 
and  cruel. 


(5)  (3)  Anne  [733]. 

X “ Notorious.” 


We  thus  see  that  MigueK732!,  who  had  such  a pernicious 
influence  on  his  country’s  welfare,  derived  his  character 
clearly  by  inheritance,  and  on  his  mother’s  side.  For- 
tunately, Peteff730],  whose  characteristics  were  far  better 
than  Michael’s,  became  the  father  of  the  next  generation. 
Their  mother  was  (4)  (4)  Leopoldine[653],  daughter  of 
Francis  I,  of  Austria[8401.  She  was  both  “eccentric  and 
unpopular,”  and  the  stock  of  Austria  was  not  more  than 
fairly  good  at  this  time.  Of  the  four  children,  we  might 


Portugal 


217 


expect  nothing,  which  expectation  is  realized,  except  that 
the  son  (6)  (10)  Pedro  II,  of  BraziK737],  deserves  a place 
in  the  highest  grade  for  moral  qualities.  The  only  chance 
to  inherit  such  exceptional  virtues  would  be  from  his 
great-uncle  the  Archduke  Charles,  of  Austriat843h  so  it 
seems  fairer  to  consider  this  part  of  Pedro’s  character 
unexpected. 

The  good  characteristics  of  the  remaining  members  of 
the  house  of  Braganza  are  perfectly  in  line  with  the  full 
inheritance  of  moral  qualities.  Maria  II  married  Ferdi- 
nand, of  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,  the  family  which  I have  so 
often  referred  to  as  the  only  one  with  a practically  unsul- 
lied record,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a perfectly  white  pedi- 
gree. (Pedigree  is  always  to  be  understood  as  meaning 
all  the  immediate  ancestors  both  on  the  male  and  on  the 
female  sides.) 

Maria  II,  though  not  brilliant,  was  a quiet  and  domestic 
princess.  Ferdinand,  who  became  regent  for  a short 
time  after  Maria’s  death,  was  a man  of  true  Saxe-Coburg 
traits.  He  was  a son  of  Ferdinandt55],  a cousin  of  Prince 
Albert  and  a nephew  of  the  excellent  Leopold  I[57],  King 
of  the  Belgians.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  Saxe-Coburg 
blood  saved  Portugal  from  entire  disintegration  during 
the  darkest  days  of  her  history.  Thus  the  frightful  Haps- 
burg-Bourbon  psycho-neurosis  has  been  eliminated  from 
this  little  land,  though  it  still  exists  in  Austria  and  Spain. 
The  present  king  of  Portugal  has,  it  is  true,  married  a 
Bourbon,  but  the  Orleans  branch  from  which  Queen 
Amelia  springs  has  at  this  point  a very  good  tone.  She  is 
a granddaughter  of  both  excellent  princes  Ferdinand[418i 
and  Anthony[423]. 

To  summarize:  The  royal  family  of  Portugal  presents 


2i 8 Heredity  in  Royalty 

but  few  exceptions  to  expected  inheritance.  (About  four 
in  eighty-five.)  This  is  as  true  of  the  moral  as  of  the 
mental  qualities.  In  the  earliest  days,  we  find  a few 
distinctly  vicious  characters,  yet  there  were  always  a 
majority  of  quite  the  opposite  type.  Unworthy  types 
seem  to  occur  with  about  the  same  frequency  all  down 
the  line,  and  do  not  diminish  except  in  most  recent  gen- 
erations, or  in  the  fifteenth  century,  in  the  children  of 
John  I,  both  of  which  occurrences  seem  more  the  product 
of  blood  than  of  surrounding  conditions.  The  early  pedi- 
grees were  strong,  and  well  above  the  average,  and  in  these 
early  pedigrees  we  see  this  vigor  repeated  again  and 
again.  The  individuals  who  composed  them  resided  in 
almost  every  country  of  Europe.  The  results  of  the 
pedigrees  were  the  great  kings.  The  great  kings  caused 
the  progress.  This  theory  all  holds  together  in  a per- 
fectly logical  way.  If  we  took  the  contrary  view,  and 
argued  that  great  opportunities  produced  the  great  kings, 
we  should  not  in  this  step  of  reasoning  know  that  we 
were  wrong,  but  we  could  not  then  explain  the  third 
series  of  observed  facts.  We  could  not  explain  the  pedi- 
grees, for  neither  the  men  themselves,  nor  the  events  in 
which  they  individually  lived,  could  have  arranged  the 
marriages  of  their  ancestors  of  a hundred  years  previous. 

The  grades  in  this  chapter  are  based  on  all  the  combined  and  averaged 
opinions  from  the  following:  Biog.  Univers.;  Lippincott’s;  Vapereau,  “Diet, 
des  Contemporaines  McMurdo;  Dunham, “Spain  and  Portugal”;  Busk;  La 
Clede;  Fonseca,  “ Las  Rainhas  de  Portugal  ”;  Walton,  “ Revolutions  ”;  H. 
M.  Stephens;  J.  S.  Alexander;  Hubbard;  W.  Bollaert  and  H.  Schafer; 
Encyclop.  Britannica.  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


Romanoffs  in  Russia  Prior  to  1762 

[742] -[767] 

From  Feodor  Romanoff  (1550-1633)  to  Peter  III 
(1728-62),  includes  six  generations  and  twenty-six  per- 
sons in  the  direct  family.  These  twenty-six  show  the 
most  remarkable  variation  in  character  and  abilities. 

Feodor[742],  the  first  to  be  considered,  was  the  greatest 
man  in  Russia  in  his  day,  and  it  was  owing  to  his  abilities 
and  virtues  that  his  son,  Michaek743],  was  placed  on  the 
throne.  Michael  was  prudent,  mild,  and  virtuous,  mar- 
ried a peasant  woman  of  the  same  character,  and  was  the 
father  of  Alexis1 745],  who,  in  turn,  was  very  much  like  his 
parents.  Alexis[743i  married  twice,  both  queens  being 
beautiful  peasant  girls.  The  czars  at  this  time  chose 
their  wives  from  a large  number  of  their  subjects.  All 
the  most  charming  girls  in  the  kingdom  were  brought  to 
the  court  for  their  sovereign’s  inspection,  the  most  beau- 
tiful of  all  being  selected  and  made  legal  queen.  From 
both  of  these  unions  came  epileptic  children. 

It  seems  impossible  to  trace  the  origin  of  this  famous 
psychosis  in  the  Romanoffs,  as  it  probably  arose  in  the 
obscure  stock  back  of  Alexis.  From  Alexis’  first  marriage 
were  produced  Feodor[749],  imbecile;  Sophia[748],  extraor- 
dinary force  of  will,  ambition,  and  high  abilities;  and 
Ivan[751],  imbecile  and  epileptic.  From  the  second  mar- 
riage came  Peter  the  Great,  extraordinary  will  and 

219 


220 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


capacity,  but  violent  and  epileptic;  and  several  other 
children  who  were  not  remarkable.  The  genius  of  Peter 
the  Great  and  Sophia  may  have  been  a reversion  to 
Feodor[742i,  their  great-grandparent,  or  it  may  have  been 
a manifestation  of  the  psychosis,  as  Lombroso  would  say. 
On  account  of  the  very  same  ability  already  in  some  mem- 
bers as  well  as  the  evident  psychosis,  in  others  it  does 
not  seem  necessary  to  consider  them  evidences  of  the 
insanity  of  genius,  since  the  genius  may  have  struck  them 
from  one  source  and  the  insanity  from  another.  Those 
who  consider  the  tyranny  of  the  Russian  czars  a result  of 
absolutism  of  the  rulers  should  remember  that  just  prior 
to  the  appearance  of  the  degeneracy,  there  were  three 
sovereigns  who  were  in  every  way  wise,  mild,  and  virtu- 
ous, which  is  a similar  argument  to  the  citation  that  the 
“ Age  of  Absolutism  ” in  Denmark  found  mild  and  good- 
natured  rulers. 

Now  from  this  time  on  we  find  among  the  fourteen  not 
“ obscure  ” who  appear  in  the  next  three  generations,  six 
who  have  extremely  bad  characters;  three  of  these  are 
children,  two  are  grandchildren,  and  one  is  a great-grand- 
child of  Peter  the  Great.  Thus  in  this  arrangement  we 
see  the  principle  of  heredity  which  calls  for  a closer 
resemblance  among  those  more  closely  related  in  kin. 

Of  Ivan’s  children,  Catharine! 755]  was  as  good  as  the 
Empress  Anne[756]  was  “inconsistent,  vindictive,  cruel,  pas- 
sionate, and  sentimental.”  Catharine  married  average 
stock,  but  her  daughter,  Anne[758],  was  “passionate,  in- 
dolent, capricious,  and  Aveak.”  Anne[758]  married  the  ex- 
cellent but  mediocre  Anthony  Ulric,  of  Brunswick,  which 
family  we  have  already  seen  to  be  resplendent  with  vir- 
tues and  literary  tastes,  so  that  the  next  generation 


Russia 


221 


brings  one  parent  and  three  grandparents  free  from  the 
taint. 

We  now  get  just  what  we  might  expect  from  heredity, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  five  children  were  all  taken 
when  infants  and  for  political  reasons  imprisoned  for 
thirty-six  years.  Ivart739],  the  eldest,  was  almost  an  im- 
becile, and  showed  occasional  symptoms  of  insanity. 


(8)  (to)  Feodor  [7421. 

Exceptional  ability,  prudence, 
virtue,  and  energy.  “ The  greatest 
man  in  Russia  in  his  day.” 

(6)  (9)  Michael  L743]. 

Prudent,  mild,  and  virtuous. 

“ Adored  by  his  subjects.” 


(7)  (9)  Alexis  [745]. 

Wise,  virtuous,  and  temperate. 


I | 

(O  (5)  Feodor  [749J.  (9)  (4)  Sophia  [<48].  (1)  (6)  Ivan  [7o1].  (9)  (3)  Peter  the  Great  [763]. 

Imbecile.  Great  force  of  will  Imbecile  and  X Extraordinary  will 

and  ambition.  epileptic.  and  energy,  but  was 

Intriguing,  cruel.  Pious.  violent  and  epileptic. 


(4)  (6)  Catherine  [755]. 
Lively  and  good- 
humored. 

Not  peculiar  in 
any  way. 


(1X3)  Elizabeth  [758] 

X (Anne). 

Eccentric, 
extremely  capri- 
cious, passionate, 
and  indolent. 


(3)  (2)  Anne  [7“]. 

X Extraordinarily 
inconsistent. 
Cruel,  passionate, 
and  sentimental. 


(3)  (7)  Peter  II  [767]. 
Indolent  and 
capricious. 

” Somewhat 
unstable  mind.” 


( 1)  (1)  Ivan  [7*>]. 
X Almost  an 
imbecile. 
Violent  and 
eccentric. 


(6)  (7)  Elizabeth 
and  three 
others  [760]-{763]' 
Normal. 


(2)  (1)  Alexis  [764]. 
X Obstinate, 
stupid, 
dissolute. 


Natalia. 

Extremely  bright 
and  sweet- 
tempered. 


(7)  (8)  Anne  [765]. 
Serious, 
cultivated, 
and  virtuous 


(2)  (3)  Peter  III. 
X Weak, 
dissolute, 
violent. 


(3)  (1)  Elizabeth  [766]. 

X Extraordinarily 
inconsistent. 
Cruel,  passionate, 
dissolute,  and 
pious.* 


This  imbecility  might  be  attributed  to  the  imprisonment, 
which  was  extremely  severe,  but  the  other  four  children 
help  us  out.  The  following  is  taken  from  Coxe,  a very 
accurate  historian: 

“Elizabeth,  the  youngest  sister,  was  a woman  of  high 

* “ [Intellect]  better  appreciated  by  the  light  of  later  discoveries.”  — Ram- 
baud,  “Hist.  Russia,”  ii,  173. 


222 


Heredity  in  Royalty 

spirit  and  elegant  manners.  On  being  released  she  wrote 
a letter  of  thanks  to  the  empress  so  well  expressed  as  to 
excite  admiration  how  she  could  have  obtained  sufficient 
instruction  during  her  long  confinement.” 

The  other  children  were  mediocre  and  in  no  way 
peculiar.  “They  amuse  themselves  with  reading,  playing 
billiards  and  cards,  riding  and  walking.  They  walk 
much  about  the  town  and  in  the  environs,  and  drive  out 
in  carriages;  the  princes  frequently  ride,  and  particularly 
Alexis,  who  is  very  fond  of  that  exercise,  and  said  to  be 
an  expert.  They  not  infrequently  pay  visits  in  the  country 
and  dine  with  the  neighboring  families.”  * 

Thus  among  five  children  exposed  to  a very  unusual 
environment  from  infancy,  we  find  a result  showing  little 
influence  other  than  should  be  expected  from  heredity. 
Three  were  mediocre,  representing  the  majority  of  the 
strain;  one  was  an  imbecile,  corresponding  to  the  com- 
bined influence  of  his  mother  and  great-grandfather, 
Ivan[751];  and  one  was  spirited  and  cultivated  in  spite  of 
it  all,  and  rose  very  nearly  as  high  as  any  of  the  immedi- 
ate ancestors.  Of  course  such  remarkable  circumstances 
must  have  modified  the  characters  of  the  four  normal 
children,  to  some  slight  extent  at  least;  still,  even  these  ex- 
ceptional cases  deviate  very  little  from  what  is  to  be  ex- 
pected from  the  principles  of  heredity. 

Alexis[764],  Peter  the  Great’s  son  by  his  first  wife, 
Eudoxia  Lapukhin,  was  a very  poor  specimen.  “Never 
was  the  birth  of  any  prince  more  unfortunate  to  himself, 
to  his  parents,  and  to  his  country.  All  persons,  however, 
join  in  condemning  the  imprudence  and  obstinacy  of 
Alexis,  which  seem  to  have  warped  his  judgment  and  at 


* Coxe,  “Travels,”  vol.  v,  p.  19. 


Russia 


223 


times  to  have  transported  him  to  a degree  of  insanity. 
Alexis  was  extremely  dissolute,  and  preferred  the  com- 
pany of  the  lower  classes.  When  twenty-six,  worn  out 
by  continual  drunkenness,  he  demanded  permission  to 
retire  to  a convent,  but  changed  his  mind  and  escaped  to 
Vienna.”  * He  wras  retaken  and  tried.  He  died  soon 
after,  probably  murdered  by  his  father’s  orders;  though 
some  historians  contend  he  died,  as  Peter  claimed  he  did, 
by  an  apoplectic  fit. 

By  Peter’s  second  marriage  with  Catharine,  he  had 
two  daughters,  Elizabeth  and  Anne.  They  were  as  dif- 
ferent as  possible.  Elizabeth!: 7661 , the  notorious  empress, 
was  very  inconsistent,  being  indolent,  dissolute,  cruel,  and 
pious.  Anne,  on  the  contrary,  was  serious-minded, 
cultivated,  and  virtuous.  The  latter  married  Charles 
Frederick,  Duke  of  Holstein,  an  inferior  sort  of  man  of 
undistinguished  parentage;  and  the  only  son,  Peter  III, 
was  as  bad  as  the  worst  of  them,  being  weak,  dissolute, 
violent,  and  headstrong.  Alexis!7643,  the  imbecile  son  of 
Peter  the  Great,  married  Charlotte!7873,  an  “ angelic” 
daughter  of  the  good  house  of  Brunswick  already  re- 
ferred to,  and  by  this  marriage  we  see  two  children, 
one  good  and  one  bad.  Natalia,  the  daughter,  wTas 
sweet-tempered  and  remarkably  bright  and  energetic; 
while  Peter,  the  son,  who  became  Peter  Il!707],  in  spite  of 
the  best  education  “gave  up  all  study  and  political  work 
and  confined  himself  to  hunting  and  shooting.”  He  had 
a “somewhat  unstable  mind,”  but  his  character  showed 
none  of  the  cruelty  and  degeneracy  of  some  of  the  others 
of  the  family.  Peter  III  married  Catherine,  of  Anhalt- 
Zerbst,  who  became  the  notorious  empress  Catherine  II. 

* Bruce’s  “Memoirs,”  pp.  100-197. 


224  Heredity  in  Royalty 

As  we  do  not  know  who  was  the  father  of  Paul,  owing  to 
the  licentiousness  of  Catherine,  the  remaining  division  of 
the  so-called  Romanoffs  down  to  the  present  day  had 
best  be  studied  as  another  group.  They  will  not  be 
treated  of  in  the  present  work. 

The  great  variation  in  the  characters  of  the  early 
Romanoffs  is  better  explained  by  the  presence  of  the 
psycho-neurosis  than  by  any  other  reason;  for  if  we  con- 
sider the  rudeness  of  the  times  to  be  the  cause,  we  cannot 
see  just  why  the  first  three  of  the  czars,  Feodor,  Michael, 
and  Alexis,  were  so  prudent,  mild,  and  virtuous,  or  why 
the  subsequent  mental  deformities  appear  more  frequently 
in  those  closely  related  to  the  height  of  its  manifestation 
in  the  generation  of  Peter  the  Great[75T  In  modern 
Spain  a condition  similar  from  the  heredity  standpoint 
has  been  studied  under  several  different  environments  in 
no  way  like  that  of  early  Russia,  yet  the  variation  in  char- 
acter in  the  royalty  of  modern  Spain  is  quite  as  remark- 
able as  that  just  considered.  In  Spain  it  is  related  to  an 
inherited  mental  unbalance  in  just  the  same  way  as  in 
Russia. 

Authorities  for  this  period:  Lippincott’s;  Levesque;  Coxe,  “ Travels 
W.  K.  Kelly,  “ Hist,  of  Russia  ” (compiled  from  Karamsin,  Tooke  and 
Segur);  Bain,  “ Pupils  of  Peter  the  Great  O.  Browning’s  “ Life  of  Peter 
the  Great”;  Manstein’s  “Memoirs”;  Mardefeldt,  “ Dispatches,”  vol.  xv, 
pp.  238-240;  Rambaud;  Ency.  Britannica;  K.  Waliszewski.  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


Denmark 

[768] -[803] 

The  royal  house  of  Oldenburg  from  which  the  kings 
of  Denmark  are  descended,  covers,  from  Frederick  II, 
d.  1588,  to  Frederick  VII,  d.  1863,  three  centuries  and 
ten  generations.  Including  in  each  generation  not  only 
the  reigning  sovereign,  but  also  his  brothers  and  sisters, 
the  number  of  names  brought  into  this  family  is  thirty- 
six.  In  order  to  get  the  necessary  material  for  heredity 
study,  there  have  been  added  in  each  generation  all  the 
ancestors  of  every  offspring  back  to  the  great-grand- 
parents. Thus  the  number  brought  together  in  this 
group  is  raised  by  132,  or  168  represents  the  total. 

With  the  exception  of  the  first  two  kings,  this  period 
of  Danish  history  covers  what  is  known  as  the  “Age  of 
Absolutism,”  1670-1848.  A good  idea  of  the  sovereign 
rights  at  this  time  and  the  general  characteristics  of  the 
rulers  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  quotation: 

“Although  the  Royal  Law  conferred  so  absolute  a 
power  on  the  king,  a power  such  as  was  perhaps  not 
vested  in  any  other  sovereign  in  Europe,  the  autocrats 
of  the  Oldenburg  dynasty  — good-natured,  upright  and 
not  more  than  ordinarily  gifted  as  they  were  — exercised 
the  prerogative,  on  the  whole,  with  moderation  and  len- 
iency, and  the  country  had  often  reason  to  be  thankful 
for  the  advantages  secured  to  it  during  this  period,  espe- 

225 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


126 

daily  when,  among  the  royal  Councillors,  were  to  be 
found  men  of  talent  and  capacity.”  * 

“Good-natured,  upright,  and  not  more  than  ordinarily 
gifted,”  is  a fair  estimate  for  our  thirty-six  members  of 
the  Oldenburg  family  taken  as  a whole.  There  are  not 
more  than  three  or  four  exceptions  to  this  among  them 
all.  In  other  words,  the  Oldenburgs  show  no  great  men- 
tal and  moral  variations.  Do  the  characteristics  of  the 
other  132,  who,  united  with  the  male  line,  are  the  formers 
of  the  breed,  warrant  us  in  saying  that  this  result  is  only 
what  we  might  expect  from  the  direct  inheritance  of  the 
traits  of  these  progenitors  ? It  will  be  seen  that  the  char- 
acteristics of  these  outsiders  who  represent  the  maternal 
lines  amply  bear  out  such  a belief. 

In  the  pedigree  of  the  Oldenburgs  there  is  no  Haps- 
burg,  Bourbon,  or  Romanoff  insanity,  or  moral  depravity. 
There  is  no  Orange  or  Hohenzollern  genius.  In  search- 
ing out  the  quality  of  the  maternal  blood  as  it  was  intro- 
duced all  down  the  line,  one  finds  no  distinguished  an- 
cestry and  few  peculiar  characters  of  any  sort.  Two  of 
the  queens  had  brilliant  gifts  of  mind,  one  being  also 
extremely  unprincipled  in  her  political  schemes.  Aside 
from  this,  there  is  little  of  interest  in  the  ancestry.  Fred- 
erick IB768],  1534-1588,  was  a headstrong  and  arbitrary 
ruler  with  too  great  a fondness  for  strong  drink,  but  other- 
wise was  not  strange  in  any  way  and  is  not  a striking  figure 
in  Danish  history.  His  consort,  Sophia,  however,  was  a 
woman  much  praised  for  her  intellectual  eminence,  f 
From  this  union  sprang  Christian  IVt771],  the  idol  of  Danish 
history  and  the  only  sovereign  who  ranks  with  the  more 

* H.  Weitemeyer,  ed.  “ Denmark,  its  History,  etc.,”  1891,  p.  18. 

f Allen,  “Hist,  de  Dannemark,”  vol.  ii,  p.  29. 


Denmark 


227 


able  kings  of  other  countries.  There  were  five  other 
children,  but  Christian  proved  the  only  one  to  leave  a 
distinguished  record.  Anna,  the  wife  of  Christian  IV, 
descended  from  a comparatively  obscure  branch  of  the 
Brandenburg  family,  was  a mild,  sweet-tempered,  chari- 
table princess,*  but  not  a conspicuous  character  in  con- 
temporary records.  Their  son,  Frederick  III[776],  1609-70, 
was  a wise  and  shrewd  sovereign,  but  of  languid  disposi- 
tion. His  temper  was  amiable,  and  his  reign  popular. 
The  brilliant,  haughty,  and  vindictive  Sophia  Amelia  was 
queen  during  this  reign.  It  was  she  who  imprisoned  the 
king’s  half-sister  Eleanor  for  twenty-two  years,  because, 
when  trying  on  the  crown,  it  is  said,  Eleanor  dropped  it 
and  injured  a very  fine  jewel.  The  same  authority  gives 
us  the  anecdote  that  she  ordered  a noble  executed,  be- 
cause he  claimed  she  would  fall  in  love  with  him.  The 
Brunswick  stock  from  which  she  came  shows  at  this  point 
no  eminence  of  any  kind;  still,  we  should  expect  some  of 
her  six  children  to  have  inherited  her  mental  gifts.  The 
next  generation  gives  us  a rather  mediocre  showing, 
with  Prince  George^7811  (husband  of  Queen  Anne,  of  Eng- 
land) almost  a fool.  Ulrica  Eleanor  (7),  who  married 
Charles  XI,  of  Sweden,  and  became  the  mother  of  the  re- 
markable Charles  XII,  was  the  only  one  among  the  six 
children  to  represent  the  intellectual  side  of  the  family. 

Christian  V[777],  1646-1699,  the  eldest  son,  courageous, 
enterprising,  and  chivalrous,  was  no  ordinary  man;  but 
the  strong  tendency  to  ease  and  pleasure,  and  the  weak- 
ness he  showed  in  being  governed  by  others,  forbid  us  to 
give  him  a high  rating  for  intellect  when  this  is  judged  by 

* L.  J.  Flamand,  “Danmarks  Dronninger,  og  Kongernes  Gemalirder,” 
1848,  p.  11. 


aa8 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


the  standard  of  outward  achievements.  His  marriage 
brought  in  no  mental  uplifting,  since  the  queen  Charlotte 
Amelia  was  from  an  “obscure”  region  in  the  family  of 
Hesse-Cassel.  Neither  in  the  next  generation  (Freder- 
ick IV)  nor  the  two  followingt  his  (Christian  VI  and 
Frederick  V)  do  we  find  any  noteworthy  mental  variations. 
In  all  these  generations  a study  of  a chart  would  show 
the  stock  good,  but  far  from  illustrious. 

We  now  come  to  a very  interesting  anomaly  in  Chris- 
tian VIF792i,  the  only  son  of  Frederick  V,  by  his  first  wife 
Louisa[16],  daughter  of  George  II,  of  England.  Among 
all  modern  royalty  there  is  scarcely  a feebler  specimen  of 
the  human  race  than  this  poor  little,  half-mad,  debauched 
king.  His  type  of  mind  was  so  puerile  and  his  self-re- 
straint so  weak  that  it  seems  only  charity  to  consider  him 
among  the  irresponsibles.  From  L.  Wraxall  and  Wal- 
pole an  idea  may  be  obtained  of  his  conduct  during  his 
visit  to  England,  giving  the  positive  impression  that  he 
was  a degenerate  of  the  worst  type.  He  would  be  in  just 
the  place  we  might  expect  to  find  him,  if  he  belonged 
among  the  older  Romanoffs  or  modern  Bourbons,  yet 
there  is  none  of  this  blood  in  him,  nor  is  there  any  other 
equally  bad.  Christian  VII  was  a grandson  of  George 
II[8],  of  England,  and  whether  he  got  his  bad  qualities 
from  him  it  is  impossible  to  say.  If  he  did,  he  was  cer- 
tainly a great  deal  worse  than  George,  and  much  feebler 
intellectually.  It  is  interesting  in  connection  with  hered- 
ity to  note  that  Christian  VII  was  a first  cousin  of  George 
III  who  was  insane,  and  also  the  first  cousin,  once  re- 
moved, of  the  two  imbecile  sons  of  Augusta,  Princess  of 
Brunswick,  sister  of  George  III. 

Another  more  convincing  bit  of  evidence  in  this  con- 


Denmark 


229 


nection  is  to  be  found  in  the  neighboring  house  of  Hesse- 
Cassel;  here  we  find  another  first  cousin,  once  removed, 
of  Christian  VII,  who  became  insane  and  died  in  early 
manhood.  The  observation  that  this  man  Christian,  son 
of  Charles,  of  Hesse-Cassel,  is  doubly  descended  from  the 
suspected  strain  (Palatine  house),  makes  it  almost  certain 
that  we  are  dealing  with  an  inherited  insanity  in  all  cases. 
Both  the  mother  and  father  of  this  Christian,  of  Hesse, 
were  grandchildren  of  George  II[8],  and  consequently  from 
the  Palatine  house.  I almost  forgot  to  mention  Fred- 
erick William  I[227],  of  Prussia,  about  whom  Macaulay 
said,  “His  eccentricities  were  such  as  had  never  been 
seen  out  of  a mad-house.”  Frederick  Willianfi227]  was  a 
first  cousin  of  George  II[81,  and  stands  as  near  the  actual 
Palatine  insanity  as  a nephew. 

These  six  cases  would,  if  occurring  in  families  of  ordi- 
nary social  position,  be  sent  to  asylums  and  never  make 
their  way  into  the  records  as  showing  a congenital  ten- 
dency. Since  they  stand  apart  from  the  other  regions  of 
insanity  such  as  the  Spanish,  Russian,  and  modern  Bava- 
rian groups,  at  first  we  might  suspect  nothing;  but  here, 
where  we  have  the  family  tree  and  can  look  up  the  an- 
cestry, curiously  enough  we  find  all  related,  and  through 
the  same  source  (Palatine),  the  common  line  of  descent 
in  which  there  was  insanity.  This  unstrung  mental  con- 
dition which  we  find  in  Rupert,  of  Palatine,  the  famous 
cavalier  and  his  brother  Edward,  seems,  then,  the  prob- 
able origin  of  these  scattered  cases* 

* O.  Lorenz  suggests  that  the  insanity  of  George  III  of  England  was  a 
reversion  to  William  of  Brunswick,  his  sixth  ancestor  in  the  male  line,  who 
died  in  1592.  Lehrbuch  der  gesammten  wissenschaftlichen  Genealogie,” 
1898,  p.  433. 


230 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


It  should  be  noticed  that  the  percentages  for  heredity 
among  the  insane  run  from  twenty  to  ninety,  according  to 
the  observer,  and  instances  like  this  should  make  us  think 
that  the  higher  rather  than  the  lower  figures  would  be 
found  more  correct  were  family  histories  more  completely 
followed  out. 

Besides  this  evidence,  we  may  mention  the  following 
facts:  that  the  uncle  of  Christian  VII,  the  Duke  of  Cum- 
berland, was  extremely  cruel;  and  his  other  uncle,  Fred- 
erick, Prince  of  Wales,  was  a dissolute  specimen;  and 
William  IV,  of  England,  was  eccentric,  to  say  the  least. 
Whatever  we  may  say  for  hereditary  influence,  the  bring- 
ing up  of  Christian  VII  was  decidedly  bad.  He  was  in 
the  hands  of  his  stepmother,  Juliana[201],  of  Brunswick, 
who  is  said  to  have  used  every  means  to  corrupt  his  morals 
and  stunt  his  education  that  she  might  get  the  more 
power  in  her  own  hands.  I only  mention  this  to  show  a 
good  example  of  the  sort  of  cases  that  should  make  us 
bend  strongly  towards  the  importance  of  environment  in 
molding  the  psychic  form.  It  is  the  relative  absence  of 
such  cases  that  has  led  to  the  view  taken  in  this  book. 
In  spite  of  the  fact  that  Christian  VII  married  his  first 
cousin,  related  on  the  bad  side  of  the  house,  since  she 
was  a sister  of  George  IIICl8],  of  England,  his  two  chil- 
dren were  not  of  the  worst  sort  by  any  means,  though  in 
general  we  may  say  that  one  took  after  the  father  and  one 
the  mother.  Louisa  Augusta,  the  daughter,  had  rela- 
tively very  little  intellect,  no  ambition,  and  a very  quick 
temper;  while  Frederick  VI,  the  next  king,  mild,  affable, 
and  sensible,  resembled  his  mother. 

The  remaining  characters,  Christian  VIII[799]  and  Fred- 
erick VII[803],  were  merely  examples  of  good  normal  men, 


Denmark 


23 1 


liberal,  popular,  and  sufficiently  able  to  fill  their  posi- 
tions with  honor  to  their  country.  There  is  nothing  par- 
ticularly interesting  just  here,  so  we  can  conclude  the 
chapter  of  the  Oldenburg  dynasty  with  a glance  back  at 
the  seventeenth  century. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  one  little  region  where 
the  intellectual  ratings  are  fairly  high,  and  that  included  in 
this  group  is  (8)  Christian  IV,  the  greatest  of  Danish 
kings.  The  only  slight  error  from  expected  heredity  is 
that  the  intellectual  eminence  fails  to  be  perpetuated  to 
quite  the  extent  we  might  have  expected  in  any  of  the 
children  of  Frederick  III.  Ulrica  Eleanor17821,  the  only 
gifted  child,  was  “distinguished  for  her  knowledge.” 
She  was  the  mother  of  Charles  XII,  of  Sweden,  and 
in  him  the  genius  was  more  than  rejuvenated. 

Aside  from  this,  heredity  is  very  well  satisfied  in  the 
study  of  this  country,  there  being  at  most  not  more  than 
one  or  two  exceptions  to  what  we  might  expect  from  the 
workings  of  this  force.  It  is  also  important  to  note  that 
the  age  of  absolutism  entirely  failed  to  produce  a type  of 
cruel  and  arrogant  kings.  Had  such  a type  been  here 
engendered,  it  would  certainly  have  been  ascribed  largely 
to  the  environment  in  which  they  lived. 

Note.  — The  characters  occurring  under  the  house  of  Denmark  are  all 
graded  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  book.  These  grades  are  based  on  all  the 
averaged  opinions  taken  from  the  following  sources:  “Dansk  Biografish  Lexi- 
kon  ” (the  leading  biographical  dictionary  in  Danish);  “ Biog.  Universelle 
Lippincott’s;  Coxe’s  “Travels”;  H.  Weitemeyer;  Allen,  “Histoire”;  I.  Crull; 
L.  Wraxall;  Brown,  “Northern  Courts”;  P.  H.  Mallet;  S.  Laing.  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  XV 


Sweden 

[804]  — [832] 

Gustavus  Vasa  to  Charles  XIII 

The  houses  of  Vasa,  Palatine,  and  Holstein,  which  held 
the  throne  of  Sweden  from  1527  to  1818,  give  us  the 
names  of  thirty-four  related  persons  in  the  direct  family, 
and  cover  a period  of  eleven  generations.  By  including 
the  ancestors  to  the  third  degree  for  each  generation  of 
children,  we  bring  in  122  more  names,  and  have  in  this 
total  of  156  an  abundant  and  interesting  field  for  the 
study  of  heredity.  These  families  of  Sweden  are  full  of 
eccentricities,  abilities,  and  weaknesses,  and  the  tracing 
of  these  peculiarities  will  be  the  subject  of  this  section  of 
the  work. 

Gustavus  Vasa[804],  1496-1560,  the  founder  of  the  cele- 
brated dynasty  bearing  his  name,  was  a most  remarkable 
and  inspiring  character.  Of  a noble  though  poor  and 
uninfluential  family,  young  Gustavus  gave  proof  even  in 
youth  of  that  striking  personality  which  was  destined  to 
deliver  Sweden  from  the  terrors  of  misrule  and  foreign 
control,  and  make  his  name  ever  cherished  in  the  hearts 
of  his  countrymen.  Even  as  a boy  he  “played  the  king,” 
and  declared  he  would  live  to  drive  the  Danes  out  of 
Sweden. 

In  1517,  Gustavus  was  captured  by  a Danish  ship  of 

232 


Sweden 


233 


war  and  imprisoned  for  a year  in  the  castle  of  Kalloe  in 
North  Jutland.  Having  escaped  from  prison,  he  fled  to 
the  mountains  of  Dalecarlia,  where,  after  enduring  great 
hardships,  he  at  last  succeeded  in  attaching  to  himself  a 
powerful  party,  with  which  he  marched  towards  Stock- 
holm, which  finally  surrendered  in  1524,  after  an  obsti- 
nate defense.  The  throne  of  Sweden  was  now  offered  to 
him,  but  he  at  first  refused.  At  last,  after  general  solici- 
tation, with  the  interest  of  the  welfare  of  his  country  at 
heart,  he  accepted,  and  was  crowned  king  in  June,  1527. 

“Born  in  a private  station  and  bred  in  the  school  of 
adversity,  . . . equally  great  in  the  public  characters  of  a 
legislator,  warrior,  and  politician,  he  distinguished  himself 
in  every  station  of  life,  whether  we  consider  his  cool 
intrepidity  and  political  foresight,  his  talents  for  legisla- 
tion, his  propensity  to  letters  and  encouragement  of  learn- 
ing, his  affability  to  the  lowest  ranks  and  his  solid  and 
enlightened  piety.  All  his  qualities,  set  off  by  a majestic 
and  graceful  person,  and  still  further  heightened  by  the 
most  commanding  eloquence,  drew  the  esteem  and  ad- 
miration of  all,  so  that  it  might  justly  be  said  that  the 
most  arbitrary  monarch  never  exercised  a more  un- 
bounded sway  over  his  vassals  than  Gustavus  possessed 
from  the  voluntary  affection  of  his  free-born  subjects. 
In  a word,  he  was  a sovereign  who  was  esteemed  by  for- 
eigners no  less  than  by  his  own  people,  by  contempora- 
ries as  well  as  by  posterity,  one  of  the  wisest  and  best 
that  ever  adorned  a throne.”  * 

We  shall  see  later  how  closely  he  was  reproduced  in 
his  grandson,  Gustavus  Adolphus  the  Great. 

The  father  of  this  founder  of  the  house  was  Eric 


* Coxe,  “Travels  in  Russia,  Sweden,  and  Denmark,”  vol.  iv,  pp.  132-134. 


234 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Johansson,  who  is  described  as  an  insignificant  little 
man  with  a violent  and  uncontrollable  temper  * The 
other  ancestors  were  “obscure,”  and,  as  far  as  known, 
were  without  special  gifts  of  any  sort.  So  Gustavus 
Vasa  must  be  considered  a new  variation  or  a “sport”  in 
biological  terminology.  How  this  genius  was  transmitted 
we  shall  see  in  the  subsequent  history  of  the  house. 

Of  the  nine  children  available  for  our  study,  we 
have  very  complete  accounts  concerning  five.  These  are 
Eric[805],  John[808],  Magnus[807],  Charles[808],  and  Cecelia[810). 
The  others  did  not  distinguish  themselves  in  any  way  as 
far  as  known.  Of  these  five,  all  but  one,  Charles[808], 
were  violent  or  eccentric  or  both.  The  mother  of  all  but 
Eric,  Margaret  Lejonhufond,  was  a gentle,  beautiful,  and 
tactful  princess,  f with  whom  Gustavus  lived  very  happily. 
Therefore,  since  the  grandfather,  Eric,  was  violent  and 
cruel,  and  since  insanity  appeared  in  Eric  and  Magnus, 
the  children  of  both  marriages  of  Gustavus,  it  seems  fair 
to  assume  that  the  lack  of  mental  balance  was  hereditary, 
and  on  the  male  side.  Whatever  may  have  been  its 
origin,  the  insanity  was  a family  trait,  and  eccentricities 
of  one  sort  or  another  will  be  found  in  several  of  the 
descendants. 

Eric,  the  eldest  son  and  next  king,  was  suspicious, 
gloomy,  and  cruel;  and  finally,  becoming  insane,  was 
obliged  to  abdicate.  He  was,  nevertheless,  extremely 
learned,  having  a profound  acquaintance  with  the  classics 
and  all  the  sciences  of  his  day,  especially  the  occult 
branches. 

John,  the  second  son,  was  both  passionate  and  weak. 

* Geijer,  “History  of  Sweden,”  vol.  i,  p.  97. 

f Geijer,  vol.  i,  p.  127,  and  J.  Doran,  “ Monarchs,  etc.”  ii,  p.  204. 


Sweden 


235 


“His  tender  conscience,  though  it  did  not  prevent  him 
poisoning  his  father,  Eric,  yet  induced  him  to  pay  a most 
scrupulous  obedience  to  the  ridiculous  penance  ordered 
by  the  Pope  for  commission  of  the  murder.”  * “ His 

temper  hasty,  his  disposition  selfish,  with  strong  instinc- 
tive attachments,  so  that  in  domestic  life  he  oscillated 
between  the  extremes  of  indulgence  and  severity  ...  he 
at  last  grew  to  be  afraid  of  his  own  shadow.”  f 

Magnus  became  insane.  Cecelia,  his  sister,  brought 
disgrace  on  the  family  even  in  her  youth.  Later  she 
went  to  England  with  her  husband,  where  she  got  fright- 
fully into  debt,  and  died  after  leading  a rambling  and 
dissolute  life. 

Charles  DC808],  by  far  the  flower  of  the  family,  inherited 
much  of  the  genius  and  character  of  his  father.  “Al- 
though the  transcendent  merits  of  Charles  the  Ninth  are 
eclipsed  by  the  superior  qualities  of  his  father  and  son, 
yet  even  as  the  son  of  Gustavus  Vasa  and  father  of  Gus- 
tavus  Adolphus  he  seems  to  shine  no  less  with  native 
than  reflected  luster.  He  was  enterprising  yet  cautious 
in  war,  sagacious  and  decisive  in  the  cabinet,  a friend  of 
humanity,  yet  severe  in  punishment  of  crimes.  Attached 
by  principle  to  the  Protestant  cause,  he  raised  it,  almost 
drooping,  again  to  preeminence.  Zealous  to  promote  the 
interests  of  his  people,  he  built  towns,  encouraged  com- 
merce and  agriculture,  and  patronized  letters.  Of  quick 
and  lively  feelings,  he  was  subject  to  violent  but  short 
transports  of  passion,  which  harassed  his  frame  and  finally 
occasioned  his  death.”  J 

* Coxe,  op.  cit.,  vol.  iv,  p.  247. 

t Chapman,  “ Hist.  Gust.  Adolphus.”  Lond.,  1856,  p.  27. 

X Coxe,  vol.  v,  p.  175. 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


236 

Another  type  of  Vasa  eccentricity  is  found  in  the  career 
of  Gustavus[811],  the  son  of  the  mad  Eric  XIV[805].  Gus- 
tavus  had  from  youth  an  adventurous  and  curious  exist- 
ence. Rescued  when  an  infant  from  the  sack  in  which 
he  was  to  have  been  murdered,  he  was  conveyed  from 
Sweden  to  the  Jesuit  convents  of  Thorn  and  Vilna. 

“In  these  different  seminaries  he  made  considerable 
progress  in  literature,  and  in  particular  distinguished 
himself  so  much  by  his  proficiency  in  chemistry  that  he 
was  called  the  second  Paracelsus.  He  was  no  less  re- 
markable for  his  knowledge  of  languages,  speaking  with 
fluency,  besides  his  native  tongue,  French,  Italian,  Ger- 
man, Polish,  Russian,  and  Latin.  He  was  indeed  so 
zealous  in  the  prosecution  of  his  studies,  that  on  account 
of  his  indigent  circumstances,  after  attending  the  schools 
by  day,  he  used  in  the  evening  to  ply  at  the  inns  in  the 
lowest  capacity,  in  order  to  procure  a scanty  subsistence. 

“His  literary  acquisitions,  however,  did  not  advance 
his  future,  for  he  passed  a wandering  life  in  the  greatest 
misery;  was  reduced  to  such  straits  that  he  frequently  had 
recourse  to  charity,  and  at  other  times  earned  his  living 
by  the  meanest  occupations.”  * 

Here  we  see  a striking  instance  of  a son  resembling 
his  father.  The  literary  and  scientific  one-sidedness  so 
strongly  marked  appears  with  equal  force  even  under 
these  trying  and  humble  circumstances,  and  when  no  in- 
fluence of  family  example  could  have  taken  a share  in 
its  formation,  since  Gustavus  when  an  infant  was  re- 
moved from  the  surroundings  in  which  he  was  born. 

Sigismond  III[812],  1566-1632,  the  next  to  be  considered, 
was  also  in  his  way  a rather  unusual  character,  though 

* Coxe,  “Travels  in  Russia,  Sweden,  Denmark,”  vol.  iv,  p.  251. 


Sweden 


237 


the  figures  (4)  (5)  do  not  indicate  it.  This  son  of  the 
brother,  John,  and  of  Catherine,  daughter  of  Sigismond 
of  Poland,  acquired  the  throne  of  Sweden  before  his 
uncle,  Charles  IX.  The  bigotry  of  Sigismond,  com- 
bined with  his  weakness  and  peevishness,  led  to  discords 
and  estranged  his  subjects  from  him,  so  that  his  uncle, 
Charles,  was  gladly  welcomed  as  a deliverance  to  the 
country,  and  Sigismond  was  formally  deposed  in  1604. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  of  all  the  children  of  the  illus- 
trious Gustavus  Vasa,  Charles  IX  was  by  far  the  best; 
and  it  was  the  son  of  this  king  who  became  the  brightest 
light  in  Swedish  history,  — probably,  everything  con- 
sidered, the  greatest  figure  in  all  modern  royalty,  and 
one  of  the  most  ideal  heroes  who  ever  lived,  Gustavus 
Adolphus  the  Great[81T 

To  recount  the  characteristics  of  this  celebrated  cham- 
pion of  the  Protestant  cause  would  be  but  to  repeat  again 
the  eulogies  for  the  founder  of  the  house,  his  grandfather. 
The  nobility  and  genius  of  Gustavus  Adolphus  are  too 
well  known  to  need  much  comment  here.  It  will  be 
sufficient  to  quote  a few  extracts  from  the  many  works 
devoted  to  his  life  and  achievements. 

“He  ascended  to  the  throne  in  his  seventeenth  year, 
and  soon  gave  proof  of  his  extraordinary  abilities.  The 
military  talents  of  Gustavus  Adolphus  were  of  the  highest 
order,  but  they  were  surpassed  by  his  admirable  qualities 
as  a man  and  his  virtues  as  a ruler.”  * “ Gustavus  was,” 

says  Schiller,  “incontestably  the  first  commander  of  his 
century  and  the  bravest  soldier  in  the  army  which  he  cre- 
ated. His  eye  watched  over  the  morals  of  the  soldiers  as 
strictly  as  over  their  bravery.  In  everything  their  law- 


* Lippincott’s  “ Biog.  Diet.” 


238 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


giver  was  also  their  example.  In  the  intoxication  of  his 
fortune  he  was  still  a man  and  a Christian,  and  in  his 
devotion  still  a hero  and  a king.” 

Such  is  the  universal  testimony  of  both  contemporaries 
and  historians  in  admiration  of  the  sublime  personality 
of  Gustavus  Adolphus,  the  Lion  of  the  North,  who  like 
a brilliant  comet  flashed  for  a brief  time  over  European 
affairs,  until  his  course  was  terminated  all  too  soon  while 
defending  the  faith  for  which  he  gave  his  life. 

Cut  off  in  his  thirty-eighth  year,  when  most  men  are 
only  beginning  to  assume  the  full  responsibilities  for 
which  they  are  fitted,  we  do  not  know  what  might  have 
been  the  limit  to  the  manifold  acts  of  benefit  and  right- 
eousness that  would  have  been  conferred  by  Sweden’s 
greatest  king.  Let  us  pause  in  passing  to  consider  the 
mysteries  of  fate  that  heaped  upon  this  man,  sandwiched 
in  between  the  maniacs  and  weaklings  of  his  family,  all 
the  gifts  of  mind  and  heart  ever  allotted  to  mortals.  If 
great  men  are  divine,  then  heredity  is,  for  Gustavus 
Adolphus  is  but  a perfect  repetition  of  his  illustrious 
grandfather. 

After  the  death  of  the  great  king,  Sweden  passed  into 
the  hands  of  a regency  for  Christina[817],  his  only  child. 
Her  sprightly  wit  and  spirit,  her  energy  and  taste  for 
learning,  all  gave  her  countrymen  the  greatest  hope  for  a 
brilliant  future  for  their  beloved  little  queen,  “who  aston- 
ished her  guardians  by  the  vigor  of  her  understanding.” 
In  1644,  on  her  eighteenth  birthday,  she  assumed  supreme 
power,  and  for  some  time  fulfilled  all  the  expectations 
which  had  been  formed  for  her  reign. 

The  Swedish  people  were  anxious  that  Christina  should 
marry,  but  she  declined  to  sacrifice  her  independence. 


Sweden 


239 


In  1649,  however,  she  persuaded  the  Diet  to  accept  as 
her  successor  the  best  of  her  suitors,  Charles  Gustavus, 
of  Palatine-Zweibriick,  the  son  of  the  only  sister  of  Gus- 
tavus Adolphus.  In  the  following  year  she  was  crowned 
with  great  pomp. 

“About  this  time  Christina’s  character  seemed  to  un- 
dergo a remarkable  change.  She  became  wayward  and 
restless,  neglected  her  tried  counselors,  and  followed  the 
advice  of  self-seeking  favorites.  So  much  discontent  was 
aroused  by  her  extravagance  and  fickleness  that  she  at 
last  announced  her  determination  to  abdicate.”  * 

After  abdication  in  1654  she  left  for  foreign  courts, 
where  her  eccentricities  and  daring  disregard  for  con- 
ventionalities became  the  talk  of  Europe.  Upon  the 
whole,  her  character  presents  a strange  combination  of 
faults  and  foibles,  pushed  to  the  most  extravagant  excess. 
She  says  of  herself,  “that  she  was  mistrustful,  ambitious, 
passionate,  haughty,  impatient,  contemptuous,  satirical, 
incredulous,  undevout,  of  an  ardent  and  violent  temper, 
and  extremely  amorous.”  f 

The  violent  temper  was  common  to  a large  number  of 
her  paternal  ancestors,  but  it  is  especially  interesting  to 
note  that  the  change  in  her  character  was  very  similar 
to  that  of  Eric  XIV[805],  who  began  his  reign  very 
well,  and  whose  unstable  temper  did  not  display  itself 
until  he  was  about  twenty-five  years  old.  Magnus,  his 
brother,  likewise  became  insane  at  about  the  same  age. 
The  inconsistencies  of  character  which  stand  out  so 
strongly  in  many  of  the  members  of  this  family  have  not 
been  very  common  among  royalty.  They  were  found  to 

* “Ency.  Brit.,”  9th  ed.,  art.  Sweden, 
f Geijer,  “Hist.  Sweden,”  vol.  i,  p.  148. 


240 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


be  very  common  among  the  relations  of  Peter  the  Great, 
where  they  were  considered  related  to  a family  psychosis. 
Here  there  is  also  a psychosis,  so  we  have  in  the  coinci- 
dence a very  strong  proof  that  most  of  the  moral  nature 
here  inherited  in  the  form  of  inconsistencies,  as  well  as 
the  mental,  is  subject  to  heredity.  Since  Christina  abdi- 
cated to  her  cousin,  Charles  Gustavusf8181,  we  now  take  up 
the  Palatine  dynasty  of  Sweden,  which  includes  the  char- 
acters numbered  from  [ 823]  to  [834]  inclusive.  Charles 
Gustavus,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  was  the  best  of  the 
many  suitors  for  the  hand  of  the  eccentric  Christina, 
and  although  he,  like  all  the  others,  failed  to  change  her 
mind  regarding  her  determination  to  remain  single,  her 
appreciation  and  regard  for  him  were  such  that  she  suc- 
ceeded in  having  the  succession  made  in  his  name.  The 
father  to  this  new  heir  to  the  throne  was  likewise  a man 
of  excellent  character,  energy,  and  abilities.  Besides,  we 
find  Wolfgang,  of  Palatine,  1569,  the  great-grandfather, 
a man  of  great  distinction  in  his  day.  As  Catherine,  the 
mother  of  Charles1 81 8]  and  sister  of  the  great  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  was  intellectual  and  energetic,  we  have  here 
in  starting  the  new  dynasty  a selection  of  by  far  the 
better  members  of  the  family. 

Charles  X[818]  himself  was  a rather  remarkable  char- 
acter, being  a man  of  the  greatest  enterprise,  and,  as  a 
commander,  showed  the  family  brilliancy  in  a striking 
degree.  His  measures  were  in  general  entirely  just,  his 
only  noteworthy  weakness  being  his  passionate  temper. 

The  only  child  of  Charles  X was  Charles  XI[823],  who 
became  king  of  Sweden  in  his  turn,  and  began  to  exercise 
his  power  in  1692.  He  seems  to  repeat  the  character  of 
his  father  almost  exactly. 


Sweden 


241 


“Charles  was  chaste,  temperate,  economical,  vigilant, 
and  active,  a patron  of  letters,  severe  yet  not  implacable, 
prone  to  anger  but  easily  softened.  If  we  consider  the 
interior  administration  of  affairs,  Charles  XI  was  one  of 
the  wisest  monarchs  wTho  ever  sat  upon  the  throne  of 
this  kingdom.  To  him  Sweden  stands  indebted  for  many 
excellent  regulations  which  still  subsist.”*  “He  pro- 
moted manufacture,  commerce,  science,  and  arts,  sub- 
verted the  power  of  the  senate,  and  when  he  died,  left  a 
flourishing  kingdom  to  his  son  Charles  XII.”  f “He 
died  aged  forty-two,  lamenting,  it  is  said,  upon  his  death- 
bed, as  the  only  reproach  to  his  memory,  the  natural 
violence  of  his  temper,  which  he  had  not  sufficiently 
corrected.”  $ 

Charles  XI  married  Ulrica  Eleanor[782],  a virtuous  and 
intellectual  princess.  She  was  a daughter  of  Frederick 
III,  of  Denmark,  and  sole  representative  among  six  chil- 
dren of  that  little  group  of  brighter  lights  forming  Den- 
mark’s highest  intellectual  wave,  and  centered  about 
Christian  IV,  her  greatest  king. 

From  this  union  sprang  two  daughters,  in  no  way 
remarkable,  and  one  son,  born  in  1682,  who,  as  Voltaire 
says,  “became,  as  Charles  XII,  perhaps  the  most  re- 
markable man  who  ever  existed  upon  this  earth,  who 
united  in  himself  all  the  great  qualities  of  his  ancestors, 
and  who  had  no  fault  or  misfortune  except  in  having 
them  too  greatly  exaggerated.”  Invincibly  obstinate 
from  childhood,  the  only  way  of  moving  his  will  was 
through  his  sense  of  honor.  Charles  was  inordinately 

* Coxe,  “Travels,”  vol.  iv,  p.  39. 
t Lippincott’s  “Biog.  Diet.” 
t Schloetzer’s  “Briefwechsel,”  vol.  i,  p.  147. 


242 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


ambitious  from  youth,  his  only  desire  being  to  imitate 
the  career  of  Alexander  the  Great.  When  only  eighteen 
years  old  an  opportunity  was  given  him  to  display  his 
“extraordinary  martial  genius”  in  his  unequal  contest 
against  three  of  the  most  powerful  monarchs  in  Europe. 
Peter  the  Great,  of  Russia,  Frederick  IV,  of  Denmark, 
and  Augustus,  King  of  Poland,  who,  thinking  on  account 
of  the  youth  of  Charles  to  divide  his  kingdom  between 
them,  formed  a league  against  him.  With  only  20,000 
Swedes  he  attacked  80,000  Russians  under  the  Czar 
Peter  who  were  besieging  Narva,  and  then,  with  only 
8,000  men,  before  the  arrival  of  his  main  army,  gave  the 
Russians  such  a severe  defeat  that  they  were  filled  with 
consternation*  A little  later  when  Peter  made  over- 
tures for  peace  he  replied  that  he  would  “treat  with  the 
Czar  at  Moscow.” 

Charles  XIP824]  was  by  no  means  successful  in  his 
subsequent  battles,  but,  considering  the  enormous  odds 
against  him,  this  semibarbarian,  “whose  ambition  was 
madness  and  whose  valor  was  ferocity,”  may  justly  be 
considered  one  of  the  greatest  commanders  of  modern 
times,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  remarkable  men  who 
ever  lived.  Rude,  but  chaste,  frugal  in  his  dress,  food, 
and  mode  of  living,  he  seems  to  have  had  few  failings 
save  his  impetuosity  and  inordinate  ambition. 

Of  course,  such  a character  as  Charles  XII  can  never 
be  directly  derived  from  any  law  of  heredity  like  Galton’s. 
A man  who  has  more  of  certain  characteristics  than  other 
men  cannot  be  produced  by  adding  together  in  a pro- 
portionate way  the  same  characteristics  of  his  ancestors. 
But  if  these  extreme  types  like  Charles  XII,  Peter  the 

* Lippincott’s. 


Sweden 


243 


Great,  Don  Carlos,  son  of  Philip  II,  and  Frederick  the 
Great,  occur  most  frequently  where  there  is  much  of  the 
same  sort  of  character  in  several  of  the  ancestors,  we  are 
better  satisfied  that  the  types  are  the  product  of  hereditary 
influence,  than  if  they  frequently  occurred  in  regions 
where  none  of  the  relatives  show  the  character  in  ques- 
tion. The  wave  does  not  flow  back  towards  the  mean 
for  every  child  or  even  for  every  generation.  It  also 
flows  in  an  upward  swell,  and  it  is  only  to  be  expected 
that  variations  shall  occur  that  show  its  highest  mani- 
festation where  there  is  already  some  considerable  indi- 
cation of  its  presence  in  the  neighborhood  of  the  person 
in  whom  it  appears  in  such  an  extreme  degree. 

In  referring  back  to  the  ancestry,  wTe  find  the  character 
of  Charles  XII  almost  exactly  repeated,  though  in  a 
lesser  degree,  in  both  his  father  and  grandfather.  They 
were  both  active,  vigilant,  enterprising,  and  warlike,  ' 
frugal  in  daily  living,  but  passionate  in  their  temper. 
There  were  ambitions  of  marked  talents  in  nearly  all  the 
other  ancestors.  His  mother  was  intellectual  and  vir- 
tuous, and  derived,  as  we  have  seen,  from  the  most  able 
region  of  Denmark.  So,  after  all,  taking  into  considera- 
tion the  two  sisters  of  Charles  XII,  who  were  nobodies 
in  the  intellectual  scale,  we  do  not  find  this  “fraternity” 
to  which  he  belongs,  giving  us  more  than  is  called  for. 

We  are  now  brought  to  the  dynasty  of  Holstein,  which 
in  the  six  characters,  numbered  from  [832]  to  [837]  inclusive, 
gives  us  no  names  that  amount  to  anything;  nor  am  I 
able  to  find  out  anything  concerning  the  apparent  nonen- 
tities who  formed  the  ancestry  and  relationship  of  these. 
With  the  exception  of  Charles  Frederick,  of  Holstein, 
also  an  inferior  character,  this  new  dynasty  is  in  no  way 


2 44 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


related  to  the  former  dynasty  of  Palatine,  which,  like 
that  of  Vasa,  we  have  found  so  remarkable. 

Adolphus  Frederick,  of  Holstein[ml,  one  of  the  inferior 
ones  above  mentioned,  married  Louisa  Ulrica[233],  a 
sister  of  Frederick  the  Great.  We  find  in  her  a woman 
of  a very  different  stamp.  Among  all  the  richly  endowed 
sisters  of  Frederick  the  Great,  Louisa  Ulrica,  Queen 
of  Sweden,  stands  probably  at  the  head  of  the  list.  An 
idea  of  her  character  and  attainments  can  be  drawn  from 
several  contemporaries  here  quoted. 

“The  Queen  Dowager  to  whom  we  had  the  honor  of 
being  presented,  a sister  of  the  King  of  Prussia  ...  a 
princess  who  resembled  her  brother  as  well  in  the  features 
of  her  countenance  as  in  those  eminent  qualities  which 
characterize  the  house  of  Brandenburg. 

“She  was  accustomed  to  rule  the  cabinet  with  abso- 
lute authority  in  the  reign  of  her  husband.”  * 

“A  great  and  inflexible  woman  of  rare  endowment 
and  uncommon  cultivation.”  “Really  merited  the  appel- 
lation of  the  ‘Minerva  of  the  North.’”  f 

Since  Louisa  Ulrica  belongs,  of  course,  among  the 
Hohenzollerns,  we  have  passed  rather  rapidly  over  the 
dynasty  of  Holstein,  which  to  this  point  has  furnished  no 
great  names.  The  next  generation,  children  of  Adolphus 
Frederick  and  Louisa  Ulrica,  gives  us  four,  and  among 
them,  third  in  the  list,  Gustavus  III[828],  who  was  des- 
tined to  shine  as  another  Swedish  king  of  extraordinary 
ability.  “His  ardent  mind  and  fertile  genius  acted  as 
a perpetual  impetus  to  things  that  were  new,  grand,  and 
out  of  the  common  track.”  He  was  ‘ so  accomplished 

* Coxe,  “Travels,”  vol.  iv.,  p.  30. 
f Brown,  “ Northern  Courts.” 


Sweden 


245 


a gentleman  that  there  was  scarcely  a professor  of  litera- 
ture or  any  of  the  liberal  arts  but  he  was  able  to  excel 
each  in  his  own  peculiar  study.  He  was  always  spoken 
of  as  a prodigy  of  talents.”  * 

Lippincott’s  “Biographical  Dictionary”  says  that,  “In 
addition  to  his  talents  as  a statesman,  he  was  distinguished 
as  a poet  and  dramatist.” 

This  literary  bent  was  very  strong  in  his  mother  as 
well  as  in  many  members  of  her  family. 

His  sister,  Sophia  Albertinat831],  “was  possessed  of  a 
great  share  of  personal  virtue  and  a capacity  as  vast  and 
varied  as  her  brother,  and  unsullied  by  his  vices.”  The 
oldest  brother  amounted  to  nothing;  while  the  youngest, 
as  Charles  XIII[829J,  showed  in  his  ambition,  wisdom  and 
skill  in  the  management  of  the  country’s  affairs,  much  of 
the  family  genius. 

Gustavus  IW32],  the  only  son  of  GustavusIII,  and  the 
last  of  the  family,  though  gifted  to  a certain  extent,  car- 
ried ambition  to  madness  and  folly,  and,  being  finally 
deposed,  supported  himself  by  writing,  together  with  a 
small  pension.  Since  Charles  XIII,  the  uncle  of  Gus- 
tavus IV,  who  succeeded  him  on  the  throne,  adopted  and 
made  successor,  Bernadotte,  Napoleon’s  agent,  we  have 
now  reached  the  close  of  our  chapter  on  modern  Sweden. f 

In  the  study  of  this  country,  from  Gustavus  Vasa  to 
Gustavus  IV,  we  find  throughout  a most  perfect  confirm- 
ation of  the  theory  of  mental  and  moral  heredity.  We 
find  that  in  selecting  those  who  were  to  become  the  pro- 
genitors of  the  next  generation,  twice  a choice  of  the  best 

* J.  Brown,  “Northern  Courts,”  vol.  i,  p.  341. 

t Characters  belonging  to  Sweden  may  be  found  graded  in  the  first  chapter 
of  the  book. 


246 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


among  them  all  in  Charles  IX  and  Charles  X,  and  the 
cause  of  this  selection  lay  in  the  fact  that  their  very 
merits  brought  to  them  the  throne.  In  the  union  of 
Charles  the  Tenth’s  great  son  with  the  strongest  part  of 
Denmark’s  dynasty,  we  have  still  another  point  where 
the  genius  was  not  allowed  to  die.  We  find  no  more 
great  names,  only  the  petty  Holsteins,  until  Gustavus 

jjj[828]  reciajms 

once  more  the  glory  of  his  ances- 
tors; but  this  we  find  to  be  not  the  ancient  genius,  but 
a fresh  graft,  and  from  the  famous  Hohenzollerns,  taken 
at  the  height  of  their  intellectual  eminence  in  the  time  of 

Frederick  the  Greatf229]. 

In  all  this  Swedish  history  the  lives  of  these  men 
and  women  cannot  be  explained  by  environment.  If  we 
adopt  this  view,  why  did  so  many  among  them  who  must 
have  had  most  abundant  opportunities,  fail  entirely  to 
exhibit  any  of  these  remarkable  mental  statures?  The 
only  serious  defect  on  the  moral  side  was  their  violent 
and  ungovernable  temper.  Since  there  was  also  mental 
unbalance  in  the  family,  it  seems  fair  to  assume  that 
these  violent  tempers  were  a manifestation  of  the  psy- 
chosis, and  not  to  be  ascribed  to  their  high  and  arbitrary 
position. 

Also,  relative  to  the  moral  qualities  in  this  family,  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  good  reason  from  the  standpoint 
of  environment,  why  there  should  be  such  an  absence  of 
that  dissolute  and  licentious  type  so  continually  found  in 
Spain,  France,  and  Russia  during  these  same  centuries. 
But  if  we  look  at  it  from  the  standpoint  of  heredity,  we 
can  easily  see  why  this  is  so,  since  it  was  neither  there  to 
any  great  extent  in  the  earlier  generations,  nor  was  it  in 
those  who  became  the  subsequent  ancestors  on  the  ma- 


Sweden 


247 


ternal  sides  of  the  different  male  lines  considered.  It 
does  not  seem  that  the  example,  set  to  princes  by  their 
parents  should  be  of  more  effect  than  general  tempta- 
tions such  as  come  to  all  who  have  abundant  means  at 
their  disposal;  and  we  know  too  many  examples,  both  in 
royalty  and  out,  where  parental  influence  has  sadly  failed 
to  inculcate  such  desirable  lessons. 

References:  “ Biog.  Universelle”;  Lippincott’s;  “Allge.  deutsche  Biog.”; 
Geijer,  “ Hist,  de  la  Suede’’;  W.  Coxe,  “Travels”;  Brown,  “Northern 
Courts”;  Ruehs,  “ Gesch.  Schwedens  ”;  Bain,  “Scandinavia.”  See  Appendix. 


CHAPTER  XVI 


Evidence  from  Lehr’s  Genealogy 

If  there  is  any  one  still  unconvinced  that  heredity  is 
by  far  the  most  important  of  all  causes  leading  to  high 
mental  activity  resulting  in  what  we  call  eminence  or 
distinction,  he  need  only  carefully  study  the  great  book 
of  pedigrees  compiled  by  Paul  Ernst  Lehr.  If  he  will 
follow  these  charts  of  relationship,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
use  any  general  biographical  dictionary,  he  will  find  how 
seldom  has  distinction,  as  judged  by  achievements,  fallen 
to  those  not  close  blood  relations  of  others  of  the  same 
stamp.  And  this  consanguinity  of  distinction  is  found  in 
spite  of  the  varying  degrees  of  education  and  opportunity 
that  must  have  been  presented  to  these  different  princes 
even  when  living  in  the  same  age  or  the  same  family.  If 
we  find,  as  we  do  on  certain  pages  of  the  book,  great 
barren  regions  containing  dozens  of  titles  of  the  highest 
social  rank,  the  bearers  of  which  lived  in  different  coun- 
tries and  eras,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  these 
undistinguished  princes  did  not  average  just  as  much 
opportunity  as  the  average  of  dozens  on  some  other  page 
where,  clustered  together  from  close  blood  relationship, 
are  the  names  of  those  whose  achievements  have  been  the 
themes  of  biographers  and  historians. 

For  instance,  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  reason 
why  the  kings  and  princes  of  Denmark  should  not  have 
averaged  just  about  the  same  opportunity  as  the  princes 

248 


Evidence  from  Lehr’s  Genealogy  249 

of  Prussia;  education  of  varying  degrees  of  perfection, 
stirring  times  and  chances  to  display  ability  in  war  and 
government,  fell  to  the  lot  of  a certain  number  in  each 
country,  certainly  to  no  more  in  Prussia  than  in  Den- 
mark, yet  Denmark  is  barren  of  genius,  and  Prussia  at 
the  same  time  is  full  of  it.  In  that  period  not  only  do  we 
find  great  men  and  women  in  Prussia,  but  also  their  rela- 
tives in  Brunswick  and  Sweden,  engaged  in  vigorous 
activity,  while  the  princes  of  nine-tenths  of  the  other 
countries  of  Europe  are  doing  nothing  really  worthy  of 
any  mention  at  all,  although  education  and  events  must 
certainly  be  favorable  to  a great  many  of  them. 

It  is  not  that  education  is  of  no  moment,  for  it  must 
be,  as  we  all  know,  of  conspicuous  influence  in  mental 
development.  Even  those  “self-made”  men  who  have 
had  no  education  worth  mentioning  in  the  ordinary  sense 
of  the  word,  have  nevertheless  educated  themselves  by 
observation  and  experience.  It  is  not  that  education  is 
of  no  moment,  but  it  must  be  that  the  determining  factor 
in  the  production  of  the  more  important  man  is  not  his 
education  or  his  opportunities,  but  the  inherent  desire 
for  knowledge  and  power  that  makes  him  seek  an  educa- 
tion in  one  way  or  another,  while  the  mediocre  man  is 
not  willing  to  have  more  thrust  upon  him  than  his  native 
attention  can  stand. 

Lehr’s  “Genealogy”  is  a book  compiled  for  purely 
heraldic  purposes,  and  traces  to  the  twelfth  degree  of 
remoteness  eight  of  the  principal  reigning  families  of 
northern  Europe.  Since  in  going  back  twelve  genera- 
tions every  person  has  4,096  ancestral  quarterings,  the 
total  value  of  the  material  brought  together  in  this  way 
is  8 X 4,096  = 32,768,  an  immense  field  for  the  study  of 


25°  Heredity  in  Royalty 

heredity.  Owing  to  intermarriages  the  total  number  of 
different  persons  is  considerably  less  than  this,  being 
3,312;  but  it  makes  no  difference  from  the  standpoint  of 
science  whether  we  repeat  the  same  person  several  times 
in  the  pedigree,  or  whether  another  of  the  same  charac- 
teristics is  introduced  in  his  stead,  the  scientific  value  of 
this  book  is  represented  by  the  larger  number,  32,768. 
This  is,  of  course,  ignoring  the  possibility  that  inbreeding 
of  itself  creates  a different  value  for  the  stock;  but  since 
inbreeding  in  these  northern  families  was  never  very 
close,  and  since  it  is  the  best  scientific  opinion  that  in- 
breeding  per  se  as  usually  carried  on  among  human 
beings  is  of  no  consequence,  other  things  being  equal,* 
this  error,  if  it  be  one,  may  be  neglected. 

A group  of  32,768  persons,  such  as  we  have  in  the 
pages  of  Lehr,  possesses  several  peculiar  advantages  for 
the  study  of  the  origin  of  genius.  First,  it  is  gathered 
together  in  an  entirely  impersonal  way,  Lehr  having  no 
scientific  theory  in  view.  Second,  it  contains  also  medi- 
ocrities, so  that  we  may  see  how  many  times  mediocrity 
has  produced  its  like  before  any  genius  appears.  Third, 
the  exact  relationship  of  every  person  to  every  other 
person  is  known,  and  the  pedigrees  are  perfectly  com- 
plete. Fourth,  nearly  all  are  of  royal  or  noble  birth, 
very  few  being  below  the  rank  of  a count,  so  that,  al- 
though their  environments  were  very  different,  their 
social  position  was  always  much  the  same. 

Among  all  these  3,312,  I found  only  sixteen  worthy  of 
the  (9)  or  (10)  grades  here  employed.  (Being  men- 
tioned in  Lippincott’s  for  high  ability.)  These  are  given 
in  the  list  below,  the  word  (new)  being  prefixed  to  those 

* Con).  Huth,  “Marriage  of  Near  Kin.”  8vo.  London,  1887. 


Evidence  from  Lehr’s  Genealogy  251 


whose  immediate  ancestry  is  devoid  of  others  of  equal 
intellectual  worth. 

1.  (new)  Anhalt:  Catherine  II,  Empress  of  Russia. 

Catherine  must  be  considered  as  a “sport”  in  more  than  the 
popular  use  of  the  term,  since  her  ancestry  was  in  no  way 
remarkable.  She  did  not  leave  any  descendants  nearly  as 
capable  as  herself. 

2.  Brunswick:  Amelia,  Duchess  of  Saxe-Weimar. 

“Distinguished  patron  of  genius  and  learning.”  Friend  of 
Goethe.  She  was  an  excellent  student,  in  which  she  showed 
“wonderful  perseverance,”  and  also  composed  consider- 
able music.  Amelia ^was  a niece  of  Frederick  the  Great, 
and  consequently  closely  related  to  about  a dozen  of  the 
most  brilliant  of  modern  royalty. 

3.  Castile:  Isabella  the  Catholic,  wife  of  Ferdinand  of  Aragon. 

Isabella  was  probably  a reversion  due  to  the  remarkable  and 
repeated  inbreeding  from  John  of  Gaunt,  Duke  of  Lancas- 
ter, and  John  the  Great,  of  Portugal.  Her  illustrious 
descendants  were  numerous.  Among  others  may  be  men- 
tioned the  emperor,  Charles  V,  Don  John  of  Austria,  and 
Alexander  Famese. 

4.  Coligny:  Caspard,  the  great  admiral. 

The  great  admiral  was  the  product  of  the  union  of  the  Co- 
lignys  with  the  Montmorencys  when  both  families  possessed 
illustrious  names.  He  also  left  great  descendants  (Maurice 
of  Nassau  and  others). 

5.  Coligny:  Henriette. 

Poetess;  a grandniece  of  the  admiral. 

6.  (new)  Douglas:  Archibald,  Earl  of  Angus. 

Not  a conspicuous  example  of  heredity.  His  son  Gavin  was 
distinguished  as  a poet. 

7.  (new)  Egmont:  Lamoral,  -1558. 

Had  two  sons  of  some  distinction. 

8.  Hanau:  Amelia,  married  William  V,  of  Hesse-Cassel. 

As  regent,  “extraordinary  energy,  wisdom,  and  virtue.”  Wil- 
liam the  Silent,  the  illustrious  founder  of  the  Dutch  Re- 
public, had  thirty-two  grandchildren,  four  of  whom  were 
distinguished.  Amelia  was  one  of  these  four. 


252 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


9.  Hohenzollern : Frederick  William,  the  Great  Elector  of  Bran- 
denburg. True  founder  of  the  eminence  of  the  Hoheu- 
zollerns  and  greatest  man  in  Germany  in  his  day.  He 
was  one  of  the  numerous  great-grandchildren  of  William 
the  Silent. 

10.  Lorraine:  Rent:  II,  Duke  of,  -1508. 

Defeated  Charles  the  Bold.  Mother  was  a daughter  of  Rene, 
Duke  of  Anjou  (distinguished). 

11.  Lorraine:  Claude,  first  Duke  of  Guise,  son  of  the  above.  He 

served  in  the  army  with  distinction  at  Marignano  and  other 
places,  and  was  created  Duke  of  Guise  by  Francis  I.  His 
fame  was  exceeded  by  his  son,  Francis,  who  became 
“one  of  the  greatest  commanders  of  his  time,”  and  also 
by  his  grandson,  Henry,  the  bitter  opponent  of  the  Prot- 
estants. 

12.  (new)  Orange:  William  the  Silent,  illustrious  founder  of  the 

Dutch  Republic.  Sprang  from  comparatively  mediocre 
stock,  but  his  genius  was  wonderfully  well  perpetuated 
owing  to  his  remarkably  brilliant  alliances. 

13.  Palatine:  Sophia,  Electress  of  Hanover,  an  undoubted  example 

of  hereditary  talent,  owing  to  her  many  brilliant  relatives, 
and  one  of  the  connecting  links  between  the  genius  in  the 
families  of  Orange  and  Hohenzollern. 

14.  Parthenay:  Catherine,  Vicomtesse  de  Rohan,  -1631. 

“A  spirited  and  gifted  French  lady;  was  a Huguenot.  She 
distinguished  herself  at  the  siege  of  La  Rochelle  in  1627, 
and  later  published  some  poems.”  The  famous  Duke  of 
Rohan  was  her  son.  He  was  called  “ the  perfect  captain;  ” 
also  wrote  valuable  memoirs  and  a treatise  on  war.  The 
father  and  aunt  were  both  distinguished. 

15.  (new)  Romanoff:  Peter  the  Great  of  Russia. 

It  is  a question  whether  Peter  is  to  be  regarded  as  a new  vari- 
ation or  a reversion  to  his  great-grandfather,  Feodor,  who 
was  the  greatest  man  in  Russia  in  his  day.  His  only  other 
very  brilliant  relative  was  Sophia,  his  half  sister. 

16.  (new)  Vasa:  Gustavus  I,  illustrious  founder  of  the  dynasty. 

Certainly  a new  variation.  Genius  amply  inherited  in  Gus- 
tavus Adolphus  and  others. 


Evidence  from  Lehr’s  Genealogy  253 

These  are  all  the  great  names  found  among  3,312. 
All  the  quotations  are  taken  from  Lippincott’s  “ Diction- 
ary,” so  the  work  has  an  entirely  impersonal  basis.  In 
considering  the  remaining  3,296,  who,  as  far  as  Lippin- 
cott’s great  dictionary  is  concerned,  have  left  no  lives 
worthy  of  distinguished  merit,  we  gain  an  insight  into 
the  rarity  of  such  men  and  women  as  the  Great  Elector 
of  Brandenburg  or  Catherine  Parthenay.  What  of 
these  remaining  3,296?  Can  it  be  possible  that,  living 
in  the  highest  social  position  as  they  did,  a very  large 
majority  of  them  did  not  have  abundant  opportunities 
to  exercise  ability  had  they  been  the  possessors  of  it  ? 

What  is  to  be  said  on  the  side  of  heredity?  It  will  be 
seen  that  at  least  seven  of  these  sixteen  numbers  (2,  4,  5, 
8,  9,  12,  13)  belong  in  what  may  be  called  the  great 
main  mountain  chain  of  royalty,  already  discussed,  com- 
posed of  the  families  Conde,  Coligny,  Montmorency, 
Orange,  Palatine,  and  Hohenzollern,  whose  course  has 
been  already  traced  from  Anne  de  Montmorency  1493- 
1562,  as  far  as  one  generation  beyond  Frederick  the 
Great  in  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

Of  the  other  nine,  Catherine  II,  of  Russia,  alone  gives 
no  striking  proof  of  heredity.  It  is  examples  of  this  sort 
that  should  be  most  frequent  were  environment  the  main 
cause.  Since  wars  have  been  going  on  during  most  of 
the  period  covered  in  this  book,  and  since  the  majority 
of  princes  have  had  positions  in  the  army  and  cabinet, 
and  have  been  given  fair  educations,  and  since  the  effects 
of  environment  must  have  been  mostly  questions  of  chance, 
apart  from  family  influence,  there  does  not  seem  to  be 
any  reason  why  environment  should  group  the  great  ones 
together  in  any  way  except  as  regards  time  or  place. 


254 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


But  these  sixteen  are  not  grouped  as  regards  time  or 
place,  but  are  scattered  over  the  centuries  and  in  various 
countries.  If  more  than  ninety  per  cent  of  them  are 
compatible  with  all  that  can  be  expected  from  heredity 
by  falling  close  to  others  of  their  own  stamp,  and  the 
chances  are  tremendously  against  such  an  occurrence 
owing  to  the  large  preponderance  of  mediocrity,  then 
we  must  conclude  that  heredity  is  far  more  important 
than  environment  in  the  causation  of  the  above  facts. 

About  half  the  number  are  new  variations.  This  is 
pretty  well  in  line  with  results  in  the  study  of  genius  in 
general.  That  is,  the  vast  horde  of  mediocrities  produce 
great  men  in  about  the  same  number  as  the  relatively 
small  number  of  great  perpetuate  their  own  land.  The 
reason  why  genius  for  war  and  government  was  main- 
tained through  more  generations  than  scientific  or  lit- 
erary genius  has  ever  been,  is  probably  simply  this  — 
leading  families  in  science  and  art  do  not  in  general 
intermarry  in  the  way  that  these  great  governing  families 
have  done.  Some  exceptions  to  this  may  occur,  as  in 
the  families  of  Jonathan  Edwards  and  the  famous  musi- 
cian, Bach,  but  in  these  cases  the  mental  qualities  were 
perpetuated. 


CHAPTER  XVII 


The  Coreelation  Between  Mental  and  Moral 

Qualities 

In  this  chapter  I propose  to  present  for  the  first  time, 
so  far  as  I know,  some  figures  proving  a certain  correla- 
tion between  mental  and  moral  qualities.  In  addition, 
I have  some  data  showing,  not  the  birth  rate,  but  what  is 
more  to  the  point,  the  number  of  children  who  have 
reached  adult  age,  born  to  ten  different  groups  of  parents, 
arranged  according  to  their  moral  qualities.  Both 
series  of  facts  taken  together  give  us  an  insight  into  the 
progress  of  the  purely  intellectual  faculties.  They  show 
how  the  mental  level  in  each  generation  may  be  raised 
by  no  other  force  than  natural  selection. 

The  complete  acceptance  of  the  theory  of  the  “sur- 
vival of  the  fittest”  as  an  explanation  of  evolution  has 
had  for  one  of  its  greatest  bugbears  the  disbelief  that 
such  a force  could  of  itself  be  sufficient  to  explain  im- 
provement in  the  higher  human  traits.  In  the  lower 
forms  of  animal  life  the  advantages  of  intelligence  in  the 
struggle  for  existence  are  evident.  Cunning  and  strength 
mean  better  sustenance  or  surer  escape  from  natural 
enemies.  But  how  can  such  brute  forces  as  these  be  of 
determining  significance  among  individuals  of  the  human 
species,  especially  during  the  latter  ages  in  which  man 
has  risen  above  barbarism?  That  man  has  evolved  is 
admitted,  that  he  will  continue  on  the  upward  road  is 
generally  believed,  but  how  is  an  unsolved  problem. 

255 


25  6 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


For  those  who  believe  in  the  inheritance  of  acquired 
characteristics,  the  accumulated  effects  of  education  and 
superior  outward  advantages  are  the  forces  on  which  the 
present  has  been  built  and  on  which  the  future  is  to 
rely.  For  those  who  doubt  or  deny  the  old  Lamarckian 
principles,  — and  we  believe  an  increasing  number  of  nat- 
uralists belong  to  this  school,  — no  such  easy  explanation 
is  at  hand.  Some  writers  consider  that  acquired  charac- 
teristics are  probably  not  directly  inherited  through  the 
physiology  of  the  hereditary  mechanism,  but  that  the  accu- 
mulated culture  of  each  generation  creates  a new  envi- 
ronment which  in  each  generation  becomes  the  bequest 
handed  on  to  the  next.  In  this  way  institutions,  scien- 
tific improvement,  and  traditions  go  on  from  century  to 
century  in  their  work  of  building  up  the  race.  It  is 
difficult  to  see  how  men  really  and  essentially  improved 
or  superior  in  natural  endowments  could  ever  be  pro- 
duced through  the  working  of  such  a process,  even  in  an 
aeon  of  time.  And,  indeed,  it  is  denied  that  human 
nature  has  at  heart  changed  or  ever  will  change.  To 
the  minds  of  some,  civilization  is  but  a gloss  and  a veneer ; 
politeness  and  kindliness  are  maintained  while  every- 
thing runs  smoothly,  but  let  danger  or  necessity  arise, 
and  they  say  man  is  again  thrown  back  on  his  brute 
passions. 

For  a discussion  of  the  question,  “Is  the  mean  standard 
of  faculty  rising?”  and  the  citations  from  various  authors 
who  consider  on  theoretical  grounds  that  it  is  not  (Buckle, 
Bellamy,  Ritchie,  Gladstone,  Benjamin  Kidd,  et  al.),  see 
Lloyd  Morgan,  “Habit  and  Instinct,”  where  he  himself 
states  in  his  closing  paragraph:  “Natural  selection  be- 
comes more  and  more  subordinate  in  the  social  evolution 


Correlation,  Mental  with  Moral  257 

of  civilized  mankind;  and  it  would  seem  probable  with 
this  waning  of  the  influence  of  natural  selection  there 
has  been  a diminution  also  of  human  faculty.”  Alfred 
Russel  Wallace  writes:  * “In  one  of  my  latest  conversa- 
tions with  Darwin,  he  expressed  himself  very  gloomily 
on  the  future  of  humanity,  on  the  ground  that  in  our 
modern  civilization  natural  selection  had  no  play,  and 
the  fittest  did  not  survive.”  Wallace  himself  insists  that 
there  are  forces  to  be  counted  on  for  the  amelioration  of 
the  race,  one  of  which  is  the  process  of  elimination  “by 
which  vice,  violence,  and  recklessness  so  often  bring  about 
the  early  destruction  of  those  addicted  to  them.”  But  it 
is  much  more  difficult  at  first  sight  to  see  how  purely 
intellectual  qualities  are  to  be  enhanced  through  any 
process  of  natural  selection  going  on  at  the  present  day. 
Nevertheless,  if  a mental  and  a moral  correlation  can  be 
shown  to  be  a reality,  the  difficulty  is  overcome. 

The  following  figures,  which  prove  that  the  morally 
superior  are  also  the  more  endowed  mentally,  are  drawn 
from  the  various  grades  for  virtues  used  in  the  other 
chapters  of  this  work,  and  collected  in  the  lists  in  the 
first  part  of  the  book. 

If  a personal  equation  may  have  unconsciously  influ- 
enced the  grading,  it  can  have  no  possible  effect  on  the 
results  of  the  present  problem,  because  the  grading  was 
made  with  a view  to  the  study  of  inheritance,  without  the 
least  idea  of  carrying  forward  the  present  research.  It 
had  always  been  a matter  of  grave  doubt  in  my  own 
mind  whether  the  exceptionally  gifted  of  earth  were 
better  or  worse  than  the  ordinary  run  of  mankind.  Ex- 
amples like  Napoleon,  Bacon,  Byron,  and  Catherine  II 

* “ Studies  Scientific  and  Social.”  Lond.  1900,  vol.  i,  p.  509. 


258 


Heredity  in  Royalty 

of  Russia,  come  to  mind,  and  then  we  all  have  a feeling 
that  the  very  good  are  perhaps  a little  simple-minded, 
and  besides,  according  to  tradition,  they  “die  young.” 
This  pessimistic  view  of  things  is,  however,  not  borne 
out  by  the  facts. 

Analyzing  all  the  grades,  we  find  that  the  higher  grades 
for  virtues  possess  a higher  average  of  intellectual  grad- 
ing, and  that  this  rise  is  almost  perfectly  uniform  for  both 
male  and  female  groups  taken  separately.  An  average  of 
the  two  makes  a curve  that  leaves  practically  nothing  to 
be  desired.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  if  the 
total  were  great  enough  the  figures  would  make  a per- 
fectly smooth  rise. 

FEMALES. 


Grades  for  virtues. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(6) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

0) 

(10) 

Average  intellect- ) 
ual  grades  1 

5 28 

5.00 

5.66 

5.76 

5.19 

5.69 

5.89 

6.29 

6.78 

7.33 

MALES. 

Grades  for  virtues. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Average  intellect- 1 
ual  grades  1 

2.56 

3.68 

5.20 

5.27 

5.38 

5.62 

5.85 

6.44 

6.54 

7.33 

BOTH  SEXES  (Averaged). 

Grades  for  virtues. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Average  intellect-  1 
ual  grades  ) 

3.92 

4.34 

5.43 

5.51 

5.29 

5.66 

5.87 

6.  37 

6.66 

7.33 

The  figures  below  give  us  a more  exact  mathematical 
expression  of  the  actual  correlation  between  mental  and 
moral  quantities  worked  out  by  Pearson’s  method  for 
qualities  not  quantitatively  measurable,  and  expressed  as 


Correlation,  Mental  with  Moral 


2 59 


a coefficient  or  r,  which  in  this  case  is  found  to  equal 
.3403.  In  Chapter  XVIII  the  coefficients  for  heredity  have 
been  found  by  the  same  method  which  is  there  explained. 
This  decimal  is  lower  than  most  of  the  correlation  coeffi- 
cients in  man.  It  is,  however,  greater  than  that  for 
breadth  and  height  of  skull.  It  is  about  the  same  as  that 
for  strength  of  pull  and  stature,  which  is  given  as  from  .22 
to  .30,  or  strength  of  pull  and  weight,  from  .34  to  .54.* 


Mental  and  Moral  Qualities. 

MALES. 

Moral  Qualities. 


Grades 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

1 § 
s 2 

Above  the  mean 

I 

2 

19 

21 

29 

31 

32 

28 

l6 

II 

O 

Below  the  mean  . . . 

8 

17 

l6 

3° 

46 

22 

20 

13 

8 

I 

FEMALES. 


Moral  Qualities. 


Grades 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Above  the  mean  . . . 

3 

2 

7 

12 

21 

21 

13 

14 

12 

4 

Below  the  mean  . . . 

4 

6 

II 

13 

38 

25 

13 

IO 

6 

2 

BOTH  SEXES. 


Moral  Qualities. 


Below  the  mean. 

Above  the  mean. 

Totals. 

Mental 

Qualities 

Above  the  mean  . . 
Below  the  mean  . . 

117 

189 

l82 

120 

299 

3°9 

Totals 

306 

302 

608 

giving  h = .0082460  H — .3989218 

k = .0206188  K = .3988503, 

and  the  equation: 

34612  = r + .000085  r2  + .166477  7s  • • • 
the  root  of  which  is 

r = -3403  ± -0419- 

* Pearson’s  “Grammar  of  Science,”  revised  ed.,  1900,  p.  402. 


i6o 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


The  average  number  of  children  who  reached  adult 
(21)  years  bom  to  each  grade  is  seen  below  to  give  figures 
representing  a rise,  though  a less  smooth  curve.  This  is 
probably  due  to  an  insufficiency  in  the  total  number, 
though  I feel  that  this  cannot  be  dogmatically  asserted. 


FEMALES. 


Grades  for  virtues. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Average  No.  of  i 
adult  children  1 

1.43 

2.13 

2.50 

2.32 

3.24 

3.73 

3.20 

2.61 

3 73 

MALES. 


Grades  for  virtues. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Average  No.  of  1 
adult  children  1 

1.88 

3.58 

3.48 

2.49 

3.63 

3.25 

2.90 

3.44 

4.13 

4.09 

BOTH  SEXES  (Averaged). 


Grades  for  virtues. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Average  No.  of 
adult  children 

1.66 

2.86 

2.99 

2.41 

3.44 

3.49 

3.05 

3.03 

3.93 

3.80 

Such  figures  drawn  from  royalty,  in  regard  to  the  fer- 
tility of  different  grades,  can  have,  of  course,  but  a slight 
bearing  on  the  question  of  race  suicide  agitated  at  the 
present  time.  They  do  show,  however,  that,  unham- 
pered by  restraint,  as  is  fair  to  suppose  has  been  the  case 
among  royalty  where  large  families  are  always  desired, 
maximum  fertility  does  on  the  whole  run  hand  in  hand 
with  general  superiority.  Nearly  all  the  figures  which 
have  heretofore  been  compiled  upon  the  question  deal 


Correlation,  Mental  with  Moral  26 1 

only  with  the  number  born  and  not  with  the  number 
reaching  adult  years,  and  are  consequently  of  absolutely 
no  significance.  It  is  a well-known  biological  principle 
that  the  lower  the  species  the  greater  the  number  of 
offspring,  but  among  the  different  members  of  any  social 
scale,  our  foreign  immigrants  for  instance,  very  likely  it 
would  be  found  on  close  inquiry  that,  inter  se,  the  rela- 
tively superior  are  the  ones  who  are  parents  of  the  greater 
number  of  children  whom  they  are  successful  in  bringing 
to  mature  years.  There  are  many  reasons,  both  medical 
and  economic,  why  the  children  of  the  more  vicious  and 
depraved  should  die  in  the  greater  numbers.  This,  in 
the  long  run,  must  raise  the  moral  average,  and  as  mental 
qualities  are  correlated  with  the  moral,  the  intellectual 
level  must  at  the  same  time  be  raised. 

Besides  these  problems  touching  upon  natural  selection, 
there  is  another  question  upon  which  I wish  to  say  a 
few  words.  I refer  to  the  opinion  so  generally  enter- 
tained regarding  the  psychological  effect  of  the  inherit- 
ance of  great  financial  wealth.  Wallace  in  his  “Studies 
Scientific  and  Social,”  Vol.  II,  p.  519,  in  a paragraph 
headed  “Hereditary  Wealth  Bad  for  its  Recipients,” 
writes : 

“There  is  yet  another  consideration  which  leads  to 
the  same  conclusion  as  to  the  evil  of  hereditary  or  un- 
earned wealth  — its  injurious  effects  to  those  who  receive 
it,  and  through  them  to  the  whole  community.  It  is 
only  the  strongest  and  most  evenly  balanced  natures  that 
can  pass  unscathed  through  the  ordeal  of  knowing  that 
enormous  wealth  is  to  be  theirs  on  the  death  of  a parent 
or  relative.  The  worst  vices  of  our  rotten  civilization 
are  fostered  by  this  class  of  prodigals,  surrounded  by  a 


262  Heredity  in  Royalty 

crowd  of  gamblers  and  other  parasites  who  assist  in  their 
debaucheries  and  seek  every  opportunity  of  obtaining  a 
share  of  the  plunder.  This  class  of  evils  is  too  well 
known  and  comes  too  frequently  and  too  prominently 
before  the  public  to  need  dwelling  upon  here;  but  it 
serves  to  complete  the  proof  of  the  evil  effects  of  private 
inheritance,  and  to  demonstrate  in  a practical  way  the 
need  for  the  adoption  of  the  just  principle  of  equality  of 
opportunity.” 

That  instances  of  this  sort  do  come  too  frequently 
before  the  public  I do  not  deny.  The  vices  of  the  aris- 
tocracy are  always  made  the  most  of  by  the  polychrome 
daily  press;  but  if  Mr.  Wallace  or  any  one  else  has  any 
data  to  show  that  vices  among  the  rich  are  proportion- 
ally more  frequent  than  among  people  in  general,  I have 
never  seen  such  a proof.  It  is  an  assertion  entirely  un- 
warranted by  any  facts.  It  may  be  merely  a popular  fal- 
lacy which  will  probably  be  entirely  abandoned  as  soon  as 
sociology  has  properly  collected  data  bearing  on  modern 
life.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  unlikely  on  a priori  grounds. 
Wealth,  like  most  things  in  life,  is  essentially  relative. 
To  the  young  man  who  is  to  inherit  a few  thousand  dol- 
lars, if  he  belongs  in  the  middle  classes,  the  amount  seems 
as  much  to  him  as  the  same  number  of  millions  to  one 
whose  friends  all  have  riches.  There  are  plenty  of  temp- 
tations within  the  reach  of  all  classes  of  society,  and  many 
demoralizing  amusements  come  cheap.  Besides,  if  this 
view  of  the  evil  effects  of  great  wealth  were  true,  royalty, 
who  are  among  the  richest  of  the  world’s  favored  few, 
should  make  a poor  showing  from  the  general  stand- 
point of  morality.  Although  we  may  think  at  first  sight 
that  this  is  the  case,  I feel  that  I have  been  able  to  show 


Correlation,  Mental  with  Moral  263 


in  the  former  chapters  in  this  work,  that  the  bad  char- 
acters practically  always  come  as  close  relatives  of  others 
of  the  same  stamp,  and  due  to  heredity  with  perhaps 
some  influence  from  environment.  They  certainly  can- 
not be  explained  on  the  ground  of  riches,  as  here  all  are 
rich.  Furthermore,  royalty  does  not  make  a bad  show- 
ing when  taken  as  a great  group.  From  the  intellectual 
side  they  are  distinctly  above  the  average,  and  this  eight 
hundred  contains  more  great  names  than  probably  any 
other  collection  of  related  people  that  could  be  gathered 
together,  certainly  more  than  the  general  run  of  Euro- 
peans. Even  the  greatest  leaders  among  them  were  born 
in  all  cases  to  extremely  high  positions.  An  idea  of  their 
moral  standard  may  best  be  gained  by  looking  at  their 
mean  or  (5)  and  (6)  grades.  Among  the  more  modern 
and  best  known  in  these  grades  are  the  late  Humbert, 
King  of  Italy,  William  I,  German  Emperor,  Frederick 
William  IV,  of  Prussia,  Louis  Philippe,  and  Francis  Prince 
de  Joinville,  his  son;  doubtless  men  with  faults,  but  at 
the  same  time  men  with  certain  decidedly  praiseworthy 
traits,  and  in  most  instances  men  who  led  active  lives, 
certainly  not  degenerates  or  loafers. 

Conclusions.  — There  is  a very  distinct  correlation  in 
royalty  between  mental  and  moral  qualities.  If  this  is 
true  among  them,  there  is  reason  to  believe  it  probably 
true  in  every  class  of  mankind.  Among  society  in  gen- 
eral it  is  easy  to  see  how  the  vicious  and  depraved  are 
more  likely  to  be  eliminated  than  the  domestic  and  un- 
selfish. Arguments,  then,  which  prove  that  an  improve- 
ment is  going  on  in  the  general  morality  of  any  class  or 
race  must  prove  at  the  same  time,  in  view  of  this  correla- 
tion, an  increase  in  the  standard  of  mental  faculty.  The 


264 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


probability  is  that  there  are  at  work  forces  of  natural  selec- 
tion of  which  we  know  little  of  the  value  as  yet,  but  which 
are  such  that  setting  aside  all  influences  of  environment, 
whether  we  will  or  not,  the  natural  quality  of  humanity 
must  progress. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


Regression  to  the  Mean,  Correlations  and 
Conclusions 

a.  Mental  Qualities 

By  taking  the  records  of  each  country  separately  and 
analyzing  them  minutely,  we  have  seen  how  almost  per- 
fectly established  heredity  appears  to  be  as  a cause  of 
decided  mental  and  moral  peculiarities,  wherever  found. 
Instead  of  treating  each  country  separately,  the  entire 
number  of  interrelated  persons  will  now  be  studied  as 
if  they  were  arranged  on  a single  chart,  according  to 
blood  relationship.  If  such  a great  chart  were  con- 
structed, we  should  see  the  geniuses,  or  (9)  and  (10) 
grades,  not  scattered  at  random  over  its  entire  surface, 
but  isolated  little  groups  of  (9)  and  (10)  characters  (the 
individuals  within  each  group  contiguous  to  each  other) 
would  be  found  here  and  there.  One  such  group  would 
be  seen  centering  around  Frederick  the  Great,  another 
around  Queen  Isabella,  of  Spain,  another  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  William  the  Silent,  and  still  a fourth  with 
Gustavus  Adolphus  as  a center.  These  would  consti- 
tute the  largest  groups  of  closely  related  (9)  and  (10) 
characters.  There  would  also  be  a few  other  groups  of 
two  or  three  geniuses  each. 

Those  in  the  lowest  grades  for  intellect  would  also  be 
found  close  to  others  of  the  lowest  type,  and  would  fall 

265 


266 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


especially  in  Spain  and  Russia,  in  which  countries  we 
have  seen  an  inherited  insanity.  There  would  be  certain 
regions  composed  almost  entirely  of  grades  from  (4)  to 
(7).  These  would  cover  the  greater  part  of  the  chart 
and  include  the  houses  of  Hanover,  Saxe-Coburg- 
Gotha,  Reuss,  Mecklenburg,  Hapsburg  in  Austria,  Hol- 
stein, Denmark,  Saxony,  Savoy,  Orleans,  and  modern 
Portugal. 

The  problem  we  have  now  before  us  is  to  determine  if 
those  occupying  the  different  grades  have  more  and 
more  of  the  illustrious  — (9),  (10) — relations  as  we  as- 
cend the  scale;  or  in  other  words,  do  the  persons  in  grade 
(6)  have  more  close  relations  in  the  two  highest  grades 
than  those  in  (5)  have;  those  in  (7)  more  than  those  in  (6), 
and  those  in  (8)  more  than  those  in  (7);  and  finally,  do 
those  in  (9)  and  (10)  have  the  greatest  number  of  illus- 
trious relations  of  their  own  type  ? 

This  is  easily  determined  by  making  a count  of  the 
number  of  illustrious  or  (9),  (10)  close  blood  relations 
which  each  person  possesses  and  then  averaging  the 
totals  for  each  grade.  In  this  way  it  has  been  found  that 
as  a matter  of  fact,  the  grades  from  (1)  to  (6)  can  all 
claim  about  the  same  number  of  “eminent”  or  (9), 
(10)  close  blood  relations,  but  the  higher  grades,  (7)  to 
(10),  show  a very  marked  rise  for  both  the  males  and 
females,  taken  separately.  The  method  of  obtaining 
these  curves  which  show  a rise  on  the  right-hand  side  of 
the  chart  in  Plate  I,  will  now  be  explained. 

I first  took  each  name  in  grade  (10)  for  intellect,  and 
found  the  number  of  relations  in  grades  (9)  or  (10)  for 
intellect  who  stood  as  close  in  kinship  to  the  person  in 
question  as  what  I call  the  second  degree  of  relationship. 


Correlations  and  Conclusions 


267 


By  this  I mean  as  close  a relation  as  a grandparent, 
uncle,  aunt,  grandchild,  nephew,  or  niece.  In  this 
count  were  included  all  those  who  stood  closer  than  this, 


such  as  a parent,  son,  brother,  or  sister.  Cousins  and 
other  more  distant  relations  were  left  out  of  the  count 
entirely. 

In  the  upper  right-hand  corner  of  Plate  I,  we  see  the 

* Made  from  the  633  cases  first  collected  and  published  in  Popular  Science 
Monthly. 


268 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


curves  for  “Both  First  and  Second  Degree  of  Relation- 
ship.” These  give  the  result  of  this  first  count.  The 
dotted  line  in  the  extreme  upper  part  of  the  chart  lies  a 
little  above  the  level  of  the  mark  2.0,  meaning  that  the 
males  in  grade  (10)  averaged  over  2 “eminent”  rela- 
tions apiece.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  line  falls  to  a little 
more  than  1.6  when  we  collect  the  “eminent”  relation- 
ship of  grade  (9).  Grade  (8)  averages  less,  and  grade  (7) 
still  less,  while  the  grades  from  (6)  to  the  lowest,  all  show 
an  “eminent”  relationship  not  far  from  .6.  A second 
count  was  then  made,  similar  to  the  first,  but  including 
only  the  closest  blood  relations  or  those  of  the  “first 
degree.”  Under  its  head  I included  a father  or  mother 
of  the  individual,  or  a brother,  sister,  son,  or  daughter, 
but  none  of  more  remote  kinship. 

The  details  for  the  construction  of  both  sets  of  curves 
for  the  two  upper  male  grades  are  given  below,  for  the 
sake  of  a more  complete  explanation. 

Grade  (10)  for  intellect  contains  (Plate  I)  only  four- 
teen persons.  The  names  of  the  seven  men  are  here 
given  as  a sample,  together  with  the  eighteen  who  belong 
to  grade  (9).  Probably  few  will  question  the  right  of  the 
following  to  enter  these  elect  grades,  though  some  might 
place  one  or  two  a grade  higher  or  lower.  The  number 
of  relations  in  the  (9)  or  (10)  grades  which  each  person 
possesses  is  placed  on  the  left,  the  first  figure  being  for 
the  “first  and  second  degree,”  the  second  figure  being 
the  number  in  the  “first  degree”  alone  or  the  number 
of  (9),  (10)  relations  as  close  as  father  and  son,  or  brother 
and  sister. 


Correlations  and  Conclusions 


269 


Grade  (10)  (Names  Alphabetically). 

1. 1.  Bourbon,  Conde,  Louis  II,  “the  Great  Conde.” 

4.1.  Orange,  William  the  Silent. 

1. 1.  Portugal,  John  I,  “the  Great.” 

0.0.  Prussia,  Hohenzollern,  Frederick  William,  the  Great 
Elector. 

6.3.  Prussia,  Frederick  the  Great. 

1.0.  Sweden,  Gustavus  Vasa,  Founder  of  the  Dynasty. 

2.1.  Sweden,  Gustavus  Adolphus,  “the  Great.” 

i5-7 

There  are  seven  men  in  this  grade. 

The  fractions  4^-  and  y give  us  the  averages  2.14  for 
first  and  second  degree,  and  1.00  for  first  degree  only, 
found  on  Plate  I.  (See  dotted  lines  for  males.) 

Grade  (9). 

1.0.  Austria,  The  Archduke  Charles,  who  commanded  against 
Napoleon,  b.  1771. 

1.0.  Don  John,  of  Austria.  Celebrated  commander. 

1. 1.  Austria,  Maximilian  I,  Emperor,  b.  1459. 

3.1.  Bourbon,  Henry  IV,  King  of  France. 

0.0.  Gaspard  de  Coligny.  The  great  admiral  of  France. 

1.0.  Alexander  Famese. 

6.3.  Hohenzollern.  Henry,  brother  of  Frederick  the  Great. 
Considered  by  many  to  be  the  equal  of  Frederick. 

4.1.  Orange,  Maurice,  of  Nassau.  One  of  the  greatest  captains 

of  modern  times. 

1.0.  Orange,  William  III,  King  of  England. 

0.0.  Portugal,  Alfonso  I,  Founder  of  the  Kingdom. 

1.0.  “ Dennis,  “Father  of  his  Country.” 

1. 1.  “ Henry  “the  Navigator,”  celebrated  as  a mathe- 

matician. Son  of  John  “the  Great.” 

1. 1.  Romanoff,  Peter  the  Great,  of  Russia. 

0.0.  Savoy,  Prince  Eugene,  celebrated  general. 


270 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


1.0.  Saxony,  Maurice,  Elector  of,  celebrated  general. 

0.0.  Sweden,  Charles  XII,  military  genius. 

5.1.  Sweden,  Gustavus  III,  extraordinary  mind.  His  large 

eminent  relationship  is  Hohenzollern,  due  to  his  being  a 
nephew  of  Frederick  the  Great. 

3.0.  Tour.  Great  Turenne,  celebrated  commander. 

3°-9 

Since  there  are  eighteen  persons  in  this  group,  the 
fractions  f-f  and  ^ giye  us  the  averages  1.67  and  .50  seen 
in  Plate  1 to  be  the  figures  for  grade  (9). 

Let  us  now  return  to  Plate  1 and  compare  the  two  sets 
of  curves.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  upper  set  of  curves 
run  from  the  .6  point  on  the  left  to  about  1.7.  That  is, 
1.7 

the  geniuses  have  or  about  2.83  times  as  many  rela- 
tions who  are  geniuses  as  the  mediocrities  have  relations 
who  are  geniuses.  This  is  when  we  consider  “Both 
First  and  Second  Degree  of  Relationship.”  But  now  if 
we  consider  the  “First  Degree  of  Relationship  Only,”  we 
find  that  the  curves  run  from  about  the  level  of  .2  up  to 
about  8.5.  This  gives  us  a ratio  between  the  two  ends 

8 c 

of  this  curve  represented  by  the  fraction  ^ or  4-25- 

The  ratio  between  the  ends  of  the  other,  or  upper  series 
of  curves,  was  found  to  be  about  2.83.  Thus  the  first 
degree  of  relationship  is  stronger  than  the  second,  as  we 
should  expect  from  pure  hereditary  influence.  The  two 
degrees  of  relationship  lie  in  the  ratio  to  each  other  rep- 
resented by  the  figures  4.25  and  2.83.  In  other  words, 
the  upper  curves  show  but  .6659  as  much  hereditary 
influence  as  the  lower. 

With  regard  to  the  relationship  between  genius  and 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  271 

insanity,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  lines  do  not  fall 
off  as  we  go  from  the  mediocre  to  the  lowest  grades 
(in  which  those  showing  mental  unbalance  have  in  gen- 
eral been  placed).  This  confirms  the  results  obtained 
by  Havelock  Ellis  in  his  “Study  of  British  Genius,”* 
that  there  is  a slight  relationship  between  genius  and  in- 
sanity, though  nothing  like  as  much  as  claimed  by  Lom- 
broso. 

The  curves  show  that  we  have  an  almost  perfect  rise 
in  eminent  relationship  as  we  ascend  from  mediocrity  to 
the  highest  scale.  This  is  true  for  both  the  males  and 
females.  The  average  of  both  sexes  smoothes  out  the 
curve  and  gives  an  even  more  regular  rise  than  is  given 
by  each  sex  separately.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  such 
facts  mean  a great  deal,  since  were  the  geniuses  scattered 
over  the  entire  number,  without  any  law  of  distribution 
in  regard  to  blood  — as  I claim  they  should  be  in  royalty, 
from  the  effect  of  environment  on  the  intellectual  side  at 
least  — there  would  be  instead  a reverse  of  the  facts,  or 
an  actual  falling  off  in  percentage  of  eminent  relations 
among  the  higher  grades. 

This  can  be  made  clear  by  considering  any  one  instance. 
Take  the  case  of  Catherine  II,  of  Russia.  All  her  near 
relations  receive  one  count  for  being  related  to  her,  yet 
she  herself  receives  no  count,  since  none  of  her  near  rela- 
tions stands  in  a (9)  or  (10)  grade.  The  same  would  be 
true  of  Frederick  the  Great  were  he  the  only  one  in  his 
immediate  family  who  belonged  to  a (9)  or  (10)  grade. 
As  a matter  of  fact  he  counts  six  such  relations. 


* Popular  Science  Monthly,  April-September,  1901. 


I-JI 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Correlation  in  Successive  Ascending  Generations 

In  order  to  obtain  numerical  results  and  a more  exact 
criterion  for  comparison  of  theory  with  observation,  I 
have  calculafed  correlation  coefficients  by  the  Galton- 
Pearson  method  * 

The  coefficient  of  correlation,  so-called,  is  one  measure 
of  the  degree  of  resemblance  which  one  generation  bears 
to  another,  on  the  average,  in  a large  number  of  cases. 
It  is  found  by  means  of  a complicated  mathematical 
process,  is  sometimes  called  “Galton’s  function,”  and  is 
always  symbolized  by  the  letter  r.  According  to  the  Law 
of  Ancestral  Heredity  as  originally  stated,  the  theoretical 
value  of  r between  offspring  and  parent  should  be 
r=  .2,000,  between  offspring  and  grandparent  r — .1500, 
between  offspring  and  great-grandparent  r = .0750.! 

From  a large  number  of  quantitative  measurements  of 
physical  traits,  such  as  color  of  the  hair  and  eyes,  stature, 
etc.,  it  is  known  that  these  theoretical  figures  “ fit  the 
observed  facts  fairly  well,”  at  least  “whenever  the  sexes 
are  equipotent,  blend  their  characters  and  mate  pan- 
gamously.”  $ The  third  of  these  requirements,  that  they 
mate  pangamously,  is  probably  better  fulfilled  among 
royalty  than  among  human  beings  in  general,  for  we  all 
know  that  royal  marriages  are  contracted  by  persons 
other  than  those  most  directly  concerned,  or  are  arranged 
in  accordance  with  some  political  policy. 

Among  commoners  it  has  been  proved  by  Pearson  that 

* A readable  account  of  this  and  similar  methods,  given  by  R.  P.  Bigelow, 
may  be  found  in  Buck’s  “Reference  Handbook  of  the  Medical  Sciences,” 
article,  “Variation.” 

f See  Pearson,  “Grammar  of  Science,”  1900,  p.  479.  (Taking  7 = 1.) 

t Pearson,  Ibid. 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  273 

man  does  not  mate  pangamously,  but  that  “like  tends 
to  choose  like.”  In  other  words,  we  find  among  man- 
kind assortive  mating.  This  was  found  true  for  two 
very  distinct  characters,  stature  and  eye-color,  where 
Pearson  calculated  the  resemblance  between  husbands 
and  wives  as  high  as  r=. 2872  and  r=.ioo2.  “In 
fact , husband  and  wife  for  one  of  these  characters  are  more 
alike  than  uncle  and  niece , and  for  the  other  more  alike 
than  first  cousins .”  The  result  of  assortive  mating  or 
homogomy  is,  of  course,  to  raise  the  value  of  r between 
offspring  and  any  direct  ancestor,  since  the  existence  of 
homogomy  assures  that  any  quality  possessed  by  an  off- 
spring’s father  will  also  be  found  in  more  than  average 
amount  in  the  offspring’s  mother.  This  may  be  one 
reason  why  the  coefficient  of  correlation  for  stature  be- 
tween offspring  and  parent  has  been  observed  to  range 
between  r = .3000  and  r = .5000,  instead  of  r = .'3000 
which  theory  demands.  Although  assortive  mating  is 
probably  slight  among  royal  couples,  it  cannot  be  held 
to  be  entirely  absent,  as  might  be  supposed,  from  a con- 
sideration of  the  motives  lying  behind  royal  matches. 
My  own  figures  are  too  small  to  give  conclusive  results 
on  this  point,  but  I have  correlated  the  intellectual  grades 
of  229  couples  and  have  found  r — .08  approximately 
with  a probable  error,  however,  of  ± .076.  At  least  it 
would  seem,  both  from  general  considerations  and  from 
such  figures  as  we  have  at  hand,  that  the  force  of  assortive 
mating  is  less  in  royalty  than  among  couples  in  general. 
With  regard  to  the  equipotency  of  the  sexes,  it  has  al- 
ready been  shown  by  various  observers,  that  for  such 
physical  traits  as  have  already  been  measured,  the  sexes 
are  approximately  equipotent.  Differences  may  exist, 


^74  Heredity  in  Royalty 

but  these  are  small,  and  would  not  conspicuously  affect 
the  main  conclusions  drawn  in  the  present  research. 

Acording  to  Pearson,  the  third  stipulation  in  the  Law 
of  Ancestral  Heredity,  as  first  enunciated,  is  that  the 
characters  freely  blend  * This  requirement,  however,  is 
not  fulfilled.  The  entire  evidence  in  this  research  as  we 
study  families  minutely  and  separately,  seems  to  be  that 
both  mental  and  moral  qualities  more  often  than  otherwise 
do  not  thoroughly  blend,  but  give  us  many  examples  of 
at  least  partial  alternative  inheritance.  In  spite  of  this 
condition,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  seek  to 
apply  the  Law  of  Ancestral  Heredity  to  our  present  prob- 
lem, since  it  was  with  the  colors  of  basset  hounds  as  mate- 
rial and  other  non-blending  color  characters  that  Galton 
first  formulated  his  law.  The  existence  of  alternative 
inheritance  or  the  absence  of  pure  blends  should  lead  us 
to  expect  a somewhat  higher  value  for  r.f 

Let  us  now  compare  theory  and  observation  drawn  from 
our  own  figures  for  intellectual  grades,  taken  from  royal 
families.  It  is  necessary  to  state  at  the  start  that  I have 
adhered  to  a rigid  rule  regarding  the  inclusion  of  cases 

* “ Grammar  of  Science,”  1900,  p.  495. 

f It  may  occur  to  some  of  my  readers  who  are  acquainted  with  modern 
biological  theories,  that  these  psychic  traits,  being  examples  of  alternative  in- 
heritance, should  form  an  excellent  field  for  the  illustration  of  Mendel’s  laws 
of  heredity.  This  may  be  true.  One  of  the  cardinal  principles,  however,  of 
Mendelism  is  the  existence  of  “dominant”  and  “recessive”  types.  I have 
not  been  able  to  detect  this  phenomenon. 

Although  the  mind  seems  in  its  inheritance  to  roughly  obey  the  principle  of 
alternative  inheritance  and  thus  indicate  segregation  in  the  germ-cells,  I do 
not  feel  that  this  is  sufficiently  clearly  defined  to  enable  one  to  classify  accord- 
ing to  hard  and  fast  types,  as  is  possible  in  dealing  with  the  features  of  certain 
plants  and  animals,  like  the  colors  of  mice,  whether  albino  or  gray;  or  the 
shapes  of  peas,  whether  round  or  angular.  For  these  reasons  I have  not  at- 
tempted to  apply  Mendel’s  principles.  Conf.  W.  Bateson,  “Mendel’s  Prin- 
ciples of  Heredity,  a Defence.”  Camb.  1902. 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  275 

for  observation.  I have  looked  up  the  entire  male  an- 
cestry to  the  third  generation  of  all  offspring,  if  such  off- 
spring belong  to  any  of  the  houses  which  have  been 
traced  in  the  male  line.  In  a very  few  cases  it  has  not 
been  possible  to  find  anything  about  a certain  grand- 
father or  great-grandfather.  Such  an  individual  has  then 
been  taken  at  (5),  which  is  slightly  below  the  average. 
This  must  approximate  the  truth  very  closely,  for  any  one 
will  admit  that  members  of  royal  families,  who  were 
above  the  average  of  their  fellows  in  mental  endowments, 
would  find  some  slight  mention  at  least  in  the  large 
biographical  dictionaries  or  local  histories. 

It  must  also  be  explained  that,  because  the  grades  do 
not  necessarily  represent  quantitative  measurements,  for 
we  do  not  know  that  grade  (4)  is  twice  as  intellectual  as 
grade  (2),  etc.,  we  cannot  correlate  the  generations  after 
the  same  method  as  that  for  stature  or  some  trait  which 
can  be  measured  accurately.  I have,  therefore,  made  use 
of  the  “fourfold  correlation  table”  or  the  method  de- 
scribed by  Pearson  for  the  correlation  of  characters  not 
quantitatively  measurable*  I have  divided  all  the  off- 
spring into  two  classes:  first,  those  below  the  average,  or 
those  from  (i)-(5)  inclusive;  and  second,  those  above 
the  average,  or  from  (6)-(io)  inclusive.  The  ancestors 
were  divided  in  the  same  way. 

According  to  Gabon’s  Law  of  Ancestral  Heredity,  the 
theoretical  value  of  the  decimal  which  expresses  the  cor- 
relation between  parent  and  offspring  is,  as  already  stated, 
r = .3ooo.f  My  own  figures  for  504  cases  give  as 
close  as  r = -3007,  with  a probable  error  ± .0472.  For 

* Phil.  Trans.  A.,  vol.  195,  1901,  (a)  pp.  1-48. 

t See  Pearson,  “Grammar  of  Science,”  p.  479.  (Taking  7 = 1.) 


276  Heredity  in  Royalty 

the  correlation  between  offspring  and  grandfather,  theory 
calls  for  the  coefficient  ^=.1500,  or  one-half  that  for 
parent  and  offspring.  My  figures  for  952  cases  give  this 
coefficient  ^=.1506,  with  a probable  error  of  ± .0369. 
These  are  both  remarkably  close  to  theory.* 

I,  then,  to  make  a more  crucial  test,  correlated  the 
offspring  with  their  three  maternal  great-grandfathers. 
The  great-grandparents  of  a man  flourished  in  a differ- 
ent century,  and  among  royalty  we  all  know  that  the 
great-grandfather  in  the  various  maternal  lines  usually 
lived  in  other  countries  and  at  other  courts.  So  that 
while  the  son  and  father  are  perhaps  subjected  to  similar 
environments,  we  should  expect  the  surrounding  influ- 
ences of  the  three  maternal  grandfathers  living  in  another 
age,  and  often  in  other  lands,  to  be  on  the  average  dis- 
similar to  those  encompassing  their  grandsons.  Of 
course,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the  environments  of  the 
maternal  grandfathers  would  not  bear  some  slight  meas- 
urable resemblance  to  that  of  their  distant  offspring,  even 
as  far  distant  as  a great-grandson  living  in  another  part 
of  the  world.  But  it  seems  fair  to  assume  that  this  influ- 
ence would  at  most  be  very  slight. 

As  each  offspring  has  three  great-grandfathers  related 
to  him  through  some  female  link,  we  have  more  than  a 
thousand  cases,  a number  usually  considered  quite  suffi- 
cient in  such  investigations.  I found  393  offspring  who 

* It  must  be  said  in  passing,  that  the  theoretical  .30  for  parent,  and  .15  for 
grandparent,  have  not  been  realized  from  such  observations  among  animals 
and  plants  as  have  been  already  collected.  Thus  parent  correlation  is  about 
.45,  and  grandparental  range  from.  13  to  .33.  These  higher  values  may  be  due 
to  special  causes  (high  inbreeding,  assortive  mating,  etc.).  My  own  figures 
must  stand  for  what  they  are  worth.  It  is  at  least  interesting  that  in  four 
instances  out  of  five,  observation  fits  theory  almost  exactly.  See  C.  B.  Dav- 
enport," Statistical  Methods,”  1903,  p.  81,  for  various  observed  values  of  r. 


Correlations  and  Conclusions 


277 


could  be  so  utilized.  There  were  504  available  in  calcu- 
lating the  correlation  between  parent  and  offspring.  The 
reason  why  fewer  offspring  enter  the  correlation  table 
with  great-grandparents  is  that  in  each  house  the  first, 
second,  and  third  generations  after  the  foundation  of  the 
family  are  not  used.  It  is  not  until  the  fourth  younger 
generation  from  the  first  member  of  the  family  whom  I 
have  taken  a record  of,  that  the  offspring  begin  to  have 
great-grandfathers  whose  records  have  entered  my  re- 
search. From  then  on,  all  offspring  are  included.  Since 
the  individual  has  three  maternal  grandfathers,  the  total 
number  of  pairs  is  1,179,  or  tbree  times  the  number  of 
offspring.  These  give  a correlation  coefficient  of  r = 
.1528  ± .0332.  This  is  much  higher  than  the  theo- 
retical r = .0750.  Here  for  the  first  time,  we  are  able 
to  observe  the  intellectual  achievements  of  two  groups 
of  human  beings  who  lived  about  a century  apart  from 
each  other,  usually  in  other  surroundings,  and  frequently 
in  parts  of  Europe  quite  remote  from  each  other,  yet 
who  are  associated  with  each  other  in  one  point,  and  that 
blood  connection.  Will  this  force,  the  mechanism  of 
heredity,  residing  in  the  nuclei  of  the  germ-cells,  be 
strong  enough  to  cause  these  two  groups  of  distantly 
related  kin  to  resemble  each  other  in  as  great  a degree 
as  two  groups  of  similarly  related  animals  resemble  each 
other  in  some  measurable  trait?  Or,  in  other  words, 
resemble  each  other  as  much  as  theory  demands?  We 
find  that  they  do  resemble  each  other,  and  even  more  than 
is  to  be  expected.  What  is  the  cause  of  this  increase  ? 

Assortive  mating  would  increase  the  coefficient  of  cor- 
relation, but  we  have  seen  that  these  decimals  r,  repre- 
senting correlation,  are  not  increased  for  parent,  and  but 


278 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


slightly  for  grandparent.  It  is  more  probable  that  this 
coefficient  is  found  to  be  increased  in  the  case  of  offspring 
and  great-grandparent  by  in-and-in  breeding  which  is 
the  practice  everywhere  among  European  royalty.  We 
should  expect  the  grandparent  coefficient  to  be  also  in- 
creased, if  this  view  is  correct.  It  does  not  appear  to  be 
much  increased,  being  .1606  instead  of  .1500.  The 
probable  error  for  the  smaller  number  of  cases,  952, 
shows  that  it  is  likely  to  be  anything  up  to  .1975.  The 
same  applied  to  the  great-grandparents  gives  as  our 
lowest  probable  limit  .1186,  which  is  considerably  above 
.07500,  the  figure  demanded  by  theory. 

The  importance  of  all  these  figures,  however,  lies  in 
this:  If  environment  be  a strong  force  in  mental  life,  it 
should  tend  to  mold  the  closer  relations  to  type  at  the 
expense  of  the  more  distant  relationships;  while  here  we 
find  the  reverse  to  be  the  case.  It  should  increase  the 
parental  correlations  and  diminish  the  great-grandpa- 
rental.  On  the  contrary,  through  all  the  vicissitudes  of 
fortunes  and  events,  the  great-grandparents  appear  to 
have  been  able  to  furnish  their  full  quota  of  resemblance 
and  to  make  their  own  peculiarities  felt.  It  seems  ab- 
surd to  consider  that  three  distinct  great-grandparents 
who  resided  at  other  courts,  and  lived  certainly  about  a 
hundred  years  previous  to  their  offspring,  could  resemble 
them  through  influences  of  similar  surroundings.  We 
must  then  consider  the  resemblances  to  be  brought 
about  through  the  germ-cells  alone;  and  it  is  a striking 
proof  of  not  only  the  wonder,  but  the  reliability  of  this 
special  mechanism. 

I have  treated  the  moral  qualities  in  the  same  way  as 
the  mental.  Correlation  figures  have  been  drawn  for 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  279 

two  succeeding  generations,  namely,  offspring  with  parent 
and  offspring  with  grandparent.  Owing  to  the  lack  of 
data  I did  not  carry  the  work  farther.  For  these  results 
I utilized  the  grade  figures  which  I already  had  on  hand, 
and  which  have  been  employed  throughout  the  research. 
There  were  494  pairs  which  could  be  used  for  correlating 
offspring  and  father,  and  770  for  offspring  and  grand- 
father. 

The  results  here  are  in  striking  agreement  with  those 
drawn  from  mental  traits. 

Offspring  and  fathers  gave  us  /'— .3007  for  mental 
qualities,  and  here  we  find  .2983  for  moral. 

Offspring  and  grandfathers  gave  us  .161  for  mental 
qualities,  and  now  we  obtain  .175  for  moral. 

In  order  to  find,  if  possible,  a sensible  influence  of  en- 
vironment on  the  formation  of  moral  traits,  I separated 
the  paternal  and  maternal  grandparents  into  two  separate 
groups.  The  maternal  grandfather,  much  more  fre- 
quently than  the  paternal,  must  have  lived  at  another 
court  and  under  different  surroundings.  The  correlation 
for  the  paternal  grandfather  was  found  to  be  approxi- 
mately .13,  and  for  maternal  .21.  The  probable  errors 
are  about  ± .06,  so  that  I did  not  think  it  worth  while  to 
work  the  figures  out  accurately.  It  would  at  least  appear 
that  no  evidence  can  be  drawn  from  this  source  that  en- 
vironment sensibly  modifies  moral  nature.  So  far  as  the 
figures  go,  the  offspring  are  even  more  like  their  maternal 
grandparents,  under  whose  roof  they  did  not  live,  than 
they  are  like  their  paternal  grandsires,  who,  by  creating 
an  atmosphere  in  their  courts,  good  or  bad  as  the  case 
might  be,  might  have  been  supposed  to  have  in  some  de- 
gree molded  the  character  of  their  descendants. 


28o 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Mathematical  literature  concerning  the  inheritance  of 
psychic  characteristics  is  very  meager.  It  is,  neverthe- 
less, contributory  to  the  present  argument  to  mention  the 
results  obtained  by  Professor  Karl  Pearson  for  correla- 
tions of  mental  traits  between  brothers.*  For  this  rela- 
tionship, measurements  of  physical  traits  had  already 
shown  r = .5000,  a ratio  amply  sustained  by  his  obser- 
vations in  the  domain  of  mental  and  moral  qualities. 
Pearson’s  conclusions  concerning  this  research  have  been 
criticised  f on  the  ground  that  the  resemblances  found  (in 
this  case  among  school  children)  were  due  in  part,  per- 
haps in  a large  part,  to  similarities  in  environment,  home 
influence,  etc.  Pearson  justly  replies  to  his  critics:  Why 
should  these  outward  influences  give  just  .5000?  Let 
them  calculate  the  mathematical  chances  against  such 
a coincidence.  And  he  also  appeals  to  the  law  of  parsi- 
mony, which  holds  one  cause  to  be  better  than  several, 
if  that  one  explains  all  the  facts. 

I believe  Pearson’s  conclusions  to  be  correct,  for  here 
among  several  different  relationships  under  different  de- 
grees of  environmental  similarity  we  find  the  correlation 
coefficients  sturdily  holding  their  own. 

The  tables  below  give  in  greater  detail  the  figures  from 
which  the  coefficients  are  drawn,  and  it  can  be  seen  that 
not  only  are  the  final  observations  in  accordance  with 
theory,  but  that  the  numbers  associated  with  each  grade 
are  confirmatory  almost  without  exception. 

Thus  in  the  first  table,  ascending  the  scale  of  offspring 
from  grades  (1)  to  (10),  we  find  a greater  and  greater 
proportion  of  their  fathers  above  the  mean. 

* Biometrika,  vol.  iii. 

t See  Popular  Science  Monthly,  December,  1903,  vol.  lxiv,  p.  191;  and 
C.  Spearman,  American  Journal  of  Psychology,  vol.  xv,  pp.  72-101. 


Correlations  and  Conclusions 


a8i 


Offspring  and  Fathers  (. Mental  Qualities). 


Offspring. 


Grades 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Above  the  mean  . . . 

3 

9 

IS 

27 

46 

53 

44 

27 

18 

8 

Below  the  mean  . . . 

5 

IS 

28 

47 

56 

45 

36 

17 

3 

2 

Offspring. 


cn 

Below  the  mean. 

Above  the  mean. 

Totals. 

P$ 

w 

H 

Above  the  mean  . . 

IOO 

150 

250 

H 

< 

fa 

Below  the  mean  . . 

iSi 

i°3 

254 

Totals 

251 

253 

S°4 

giving  h - .0049736  H = .3989375 

k = .0099472  K = .3989225 

and  the  equation: 

.30526  = r + .0000247  **  + -166645  r3  + • • • 
the  root  of  which  is 

r = .3007  ± .0472. 


Offspring  and  Grandfathers  ( Mental  Qualities). 


Offspring. 


Grades 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Above  the  mean  . . . 

5 

17 

35 

63 

76 

72 

75 

49 

25 

II 

Below  the  mean 

II 

3i 

49 

83 

120 

108 

77 

25 

13 

7 

Offspring. 


c n 
« 
a 

Below  the  mean. 

Above  the  mean. 

Totals. 

h 

< 

a 

Above  the  mean  . . 

196 

232 

428 

2 

< 

K 

Below  the  mean  . . 

294 

230 

524 

O 

Totals 

490 

462 

952 

giving  h = .0368692  H — .3986711 

k = .1267229  K = .3957518 

and  the  equation: 

.16136  = r + .00233  ^ + .16377  f3  + • • • 
the  root  of  which  is 

r = .1606  i .0369. 


282 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


Offspring  and  Great-Grandfathers  (. Mental  Qualities). 


Offspring. 


Grades 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Above  the  mean  . . . 

6 

26 

38 

68 

96 

72 

78 

41 

26 

14 

Below  the  mean  . . . 

15 

46 

73 

130 

i65 

r32 

78 

40 

25 

IO 

Offspring. 


(fi 

X 

Below  the  mean. 

Above  the  mean. 

Totals. 

H = 

< % 

Above  the  mean  . . 

234 

231 

465 

< 

Below  the  mean  . . 

429 

285 

7i4 

O 

Totals 

663 

Si6 

1179 

giving  h = .1569088  H = .3940573 

k = .2678537  K = .3848836 

and  the  equation: 

-I5373  = r + .021014  r2  + .15089  r3  + ... 
the  root  of  which  is 

r = .1528  ± .0332. 


Offspring  and  Fathers  {Moral  Qualities). 

Offspring. 


Grades 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Above  the  mean  . . . 

4 

6 

14 

3° 

44 

40 

35 

29 

22 

IO 

Below  the  mean 

12 

18 

32 

35 

62 

34 

26 

24 

t3 

4 

Offspring. 


Below  the  mean. 

Above  the  mean. 

Totals. 

w 

m 

Above  the  mean  . . 

98 

136 

234 

< 

Below  the  mean  . . 

T59 

IOI 

260 

Totals 

257 

237 

494 

giving  h = .0507637  H — .3984284 

k — .0660134  K = .3980740 

and  the  equation: 

.30296  — r + .001675  2-2  + .16509  r3  + ... 

the  root  of  which  is 

r = .2983  JL  .0498. 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  283 

Offspring  and  Paternal  Grandfathers  ( Moral  Qualities). 


Offspring. 


Grades 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Above  the  mean  . . . 

5 

6 

13 

21 

36 

26 

29 

18 

15 

8 

Below  the  mean  . . . 

9 

15 

29 

31 

54 

40 

27 

28 

*5 

5 

Offspring  and  Maternal  Grandfathers  {Moral  Qualities). 


Offspring. 


i/i 

x 

X 
< X 

Z ^ 

Grades 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(s) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

a x 
h a 
< z 

Above  the  mean  . . . 

I 

IO 

9 

14 

26 

27 

21 

!3 

9 

8 

^ X 

0 

Below  the  mean  . . . 

9 

8 

22 

32 

46 

24 

23 

21 

14 

3 

Offspring. 


c/a 

a 

a 

Below  the  mean. 

Above  the  mean. 

Totals. 

Above  the  mean  . . 

141 

174 

3i5 

< 

Below  the  mean  . . 

255 

200 

455 

O 

Totals 

396 

374 

770 

giving  h --  .035817  H = .398683 

k = .229890  K = .388534 

and  the  equation: 

.17606  = r + .00823  r2  + -15766  r3  + ... 
the  root  of  which  is 

r = .175  ± .041. 

The  reasons  for  the  belief  that  heredity  is  almost  the 
entire  cause  for  the  mental  achievements  of  these  men 
and  women,  and  that  environment  or  free-will  must  con- 
sequently play  very  minor  roles,  may  now  be  summarized : 
First,  the  practically  perfect  results  derived  from  what 
might  be  expected  of  heredity,  both  from  the  internal 
study  of  the  families  separately,  and  from  the  curves 


284  Heredity  in  Royalty 

and  coefficients  of  correlation.  Second,  the  fact  that  en- 
vironment or  opportunity  would  not  cause,  in  royalty  at 
least,  the  great  names  to  occur  in  close  blood  connection 
with  others  of  the  same  stamp. 

It  is  worth  while  to  look  a little  further  into  the  ques- 
tion of  the  effect  of  environment,  and  see  on  what  the 
above  assertion  rests.  We  may  first  consider  the  effects 
of  education.  Royal  members  have  by  no  means  all  been 
equally  blessed  with  the  advantages  of  that  best  educa- 
tion which  we  might  naturally  expect  would  fall  to  them 
by  right  of  their  position  and  great  wealth.  For  various 
reasons  some  have  been  more  fortunate  than  others. 
Some  have  been  intentionally  neglected  in  childhood,  as 
a result  of  political  intrigues  and  ambitions,  while  others 
have  been  most  fortunate  in  obtaining,  from  youth  on- 
ward, all  the  advantages  which  should  make  a man  rise 
to  prominence  and  intellectual  strength.  These  advan- 
tages and  hindrances  must  have  always  been  of  an  acci- 
dental character,  depending  on  various  causes,  and  their 
distribution  would  occur  largely  at  haphazard  through- 
out the  entire  number  of  collected  persons  (832);  and 
could  not  account  for  the  great  group  of  mediocrity  and 
inferiority,  like  the  houses  of  Hanover,  Denmark,  Meck- 
lenburg, and  latter  Spain,  Portugal,  and  France. 

Heredity,  however,  does  account  for  these  families  as 
well  as  for  the  exceptionally  gifted  persons;  and,  further- 
more, the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  education 
appear  to  have  introduced  no  error  from  expected  in- 
heritance, either  in  the  study  of  separate  families  or  in 
the  more  exact  figures  drawn  from  larger  groups. 

The  two  fields  of  activity  in  which  royalty  have  most 
distinguished  themselves,  have  either  been  military  lead- 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  285 

ership,  or  leadership  in  affairs  of  state.  Most  princes 
have  held  high  official  positions  in  the  army,  and  by 
birth  have  been  admitted  to  the  House  of  Lords,  or  what- 
ever council  corresponds  to  this  aristocratic  branch  of 
the  government.  These  advantages  would  undoubtedly 
be  distributed  at  random  throughout  the  entire  number, 
and  could  not  produce  the  grouping  by  close  blood  rela- 
tionship found  throughout  this  entire  study. 

There  is  one  peculiar  way  in  which  a little  more  than 
half  of  all  the  males  have  had  a considerable  advantage 
over  the  others  in  gaining  distinction  as  important  his- 
torical characters.  The  eldest  sons,  or  if  not  the  eldest, 
those  sons  to  whom  the  succession  has  devolved,  have 
undoubtedly  had  greater  opportunities  to  become  illus- 
trious than  those  to  whom  the  succession  did  not  fall  by 
right  of  primogeniture.  I think  every  one  must  feel  that 
perhaps  much  of  the  greatness  of  Frederick  II,  of  Prussia, 
Gustavus  Adolphus,  and  William  the  Silent,  was  due  to 
their  official  position;  but  an  actual  mathematical  count 
is  entirely,  opposed  to  this  view.  The  inheritors  of  the 
succession  are  no  more  plentiful  in  the  higher  grades 
than  in  the  lower.  The  figures  below  show  the  number 
in  each  grade  who  came  into  power  by  inheriting  the 
throne. 


Grades. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

Total  No.  in  each  Grade  . 

7 

21 

41 

49 

7i 

70 

68 

43 

18 

7 

Succession  Inheritors  .... 

5 

14 

26 

31 

49 

38 

45 

23 

8 

4 

Per  cent 

7i 

67 

63 

64 

69 

54 

67 

54 

67 

57 

It  is  thus  seen  that  from  54  to  71  per  cent  inherited 
the  succession  in  the  different  grades.  The  upper  grades 
are  in  no  way  composed  of  men  whose  opportunities 


a86 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


were  enhanced  by  virtue  of  this  high  position.  Thus  we 
see  that  a certain  very  decided  difference  in  outward  cir- 
cumstances — namely,  the  right  of  succession  — can  be 
proved  to  have  no  effect  on  intellectual  distinction,  or  at 
least  so  small  as  to  be  unmeasurable  without  much 
greater  data.  The  younger  sons  have  made  neither  a 
poorer  nor  a better  showing.  A similar  conclusion  regard- 
ing the  negative  effect  of  environment  would  probably 
be  reached  if  we  should  make  a statistical  study  of  these 
men  in  relation  to  the  needs  or  demands  of  the  time. 

If  conditions  of  turmoil,  stress,  and  adversity  are,  as 
some  believe  them  to  be,  strong  forces  in  the  production 
of  the  great  man,  there  is  no  evidence  from  the  study  of 
royalty  to  support  such  a view.  Wars  have  been  in 
progress  during  most  of  the  period  covered  in  these 
pages.  Sometimes  the  royal  hero  has  made  his  appear- 
ance, but  more  often  he  has  not.  It  was  not  alone  in 
the  days  of  Henry  IV,  of  France,  and  Gustavus  Adolphus 
of  Sweden,  that  the  times  called  for  great  men.  The 
times  are  continually  calling  for  great  men.  Never  did 
a dying  country  call  more  urgently  than  Spain  in  the  last 
three  centuries,  yet  none  has  yet  appeared.  Italy  had  to 
wait  fifty  years  in  bondage  for  her  deliverers,  Cavour, 
Garibaldi,  and  Victor  Emanuel.  England  could  not  get 
a good  Stuart,  but  in  a descendant  of  William  the  Silent 
she  found  a hero  in  William  III. 

The  upshot  of  it  all  is,  that  as  regards  intellectual  life, 
environment  is  a totally  inadequate  explanation.  If  it 
explains  certain  characters  in  certain  instances,  it  always 
fails  to  explain  as  many  more;  while  heredity  not  only 
explains  all  (or  at  least  90  per  cent)  of  the  intellectual  side 
of  character  in  practically  every  instance,  but  does  so 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  287 

best  when  questions  of  environment  are  left  out  of  the 
discussion. 

There  is  a well-known  principle  of  logic  known  as  the 
law  of  parsimony,  which  states  that  we  should  not  intro- 
duce more,  or  more  onerous  causes  for  a phenomenon 
than  are  necessary  for  its  explanation.  Or  in  other 
words,  it  is  better  to  ascribe  one  cause  than  several,  if 
any  one  cause  can  be  shown  to  be  adequate. 

Therefore,  it  would  seem  that  we  are  forced  to  the  con- 
clusion that  all  these  rough  differences  in  intellectual 
activity  which  are  susceptible  of  grading  on  a scale  of 
ten  are  due  to  predetermined  differences  in  the  primary 
germ-cells. 

b.  Moral  Qualities 

It  is  more  difficult  to  analyze  moral  than  mental  quali- 
ties, and  it  is  more  difficult  to  arrange  them  in  an  imper- 
sonal grading.  But  the  results  obtained  speak  no  less 
clearly  and  unequivocally  for  heredity  as  the  major 
cause;  though  no  one  supposes  that  moral  education  and 
training  are  without  some  effect  on  the  formation  of 
character. 

That  these  outward  circumstances  have  as  much  influ- 
ence as  is  commonly  supposed,  or  as  much  as  predeter- 
mined and  congenital  causes,  are,  however,  conclusions 
from  which  we  are  forced  to  dissent,  on  account  of  the 
various  considerations  which  will  now  be  discussed. 

Let  us  turn  to  Plate  2,  where  the  gradings  for  morality 
are  traced  in  their  relationship  to  blood. 

I have  counted  the  number  of  altruist  — or  (9)  and 
(10)  — relations  which  each  person  possessed,  who  stood 
in  as  close  relationship  to  the  person  in  question  as  what 
I have  already  called  the  “Second  Degree  of  Relation- 


288 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


ship.”  Then  I have  struck  an  average  for  each  grade 
and  found  a definite  and  rather  perfect  rise  in  (9)  and  (10) 
relationship  as  we  ascend  from  the  lower  to  the  higher 


grades.  Plate  2 shows  that  the  two  dotted  lines  marked 
(9-10),  one  for  males  and  one  for  females,  which  begin 
in  the  lower  left-hand  corner,  rise  pretty  regularly  from 
left  to  right.  The  two_highest  grades  have  about  four 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  289 

times  as  many  relations  of  their  own  superior  worth  as 
the  two  lowest  grades  can  claim. 

I then  counted  the  number  of  moral  “deviates,”  or 
those  in  grades  as  low  as  (3),  which  each  person  possessed 
as  a relative,  and  found  that,  on  the  average,  the  lower 
grades  had  many  more  of  this  unfortunate  ilk  than  had 
the  mediocre  and  higher  grades. 

The  dotted  lines  marked  (1-2-3)  giye  us  a great  falling 
off,  which  may  be  traced  until  we  reach  grade  (5),  when 
we  see,  curiously,  a slight  rise.  Grade  (5)  not  only  has  a 
low  average  of  blood  relationship  with  the  degenerate 
type,  but  also  with  the  altruistic,  and  this  probably  means 
that  many  were  placed  in  grade  (5)  because  little  could 
be  found  relative  to  their  moral  character.  These  per- 
sons are  naturally  the  ones  who  have  lived  in  countries, 
or  during  periods,  the  history  of  which  is  more  or  less 
obscure.  They  would  consequently,  living  in  a com- 
paratively obscure  age  or  land,  have  more  close  relations 
about  whom  we  could  not  discover  much  material  for  the 
estimation  of  morality.  These  relations  (to  the  mem- 
bers in  grade  (5))  might  have  really  been  extreme  varia- 
tions from  the  mean,  and  yet  have  been  overlooked 
entirely. 

Nevertheless,  the  curves  on  Plate  2,  with  the  exception 
of  grade  (5),  give  us  results  such  as  we  might  expect  were 
heredity  the  sole  cause,  pure  and  simple,  for  moral  char- 
acter. Also  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  values  of  r 
as  given  on  pp.  282-3,  are  likewise  in  perfect  agreement. 

But  we  must  not  forget  that  environment  might  also 
give  curves  of  distribution  of  a similar  nature  (though  it  is 
doubtful  if  r would  be  of  the  same  value).  Home  influ- 
ence and  the  atmosphere  of  their  life  at  court  would  be 


290 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


better  in  those  families  where  the  individuals  have  had 
the  greatest  number  of  close  blood  relations  of  the  better 
type.  Likewise  the  degenerates,  whom  we  have  proved 
to  have  had  the  greatest  number  of  relations  in  the  low 
grades,  lived  in  degenerate  courts,  and  were  consequently 
subjected  to  vitiating  influences.  Therefore,  we  must 
admit  that  thus  far  we  cannot  separate  heredity  from 
environment  in  the  formation  of  moral  qualities. 

There  is,  however,  another  consideration  which  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that  what  we  have  on  Plate  2 and  in 
our  correlation  figures  is  really  much  more  inheritance 
than  environment.  I refer  to  the  strong  variations  or 
contrasts  which  have  constantly  been  found  in  those 
families  who  have  been  the  most  unfortunate  in  fostering 
many  of  the  depraved  type.  In  the  house  of  Hanover  we 
found  an  occasional  black  sheep  in  each  generation,  but 
these  few,  who  were  low  in  the  moral  grades,  stood  out 
in  sharp  contrast  to  the  majority  of  the  members.  If 
the  temptations  of  the  highest  social  position  with  plenty 
of  spending  money  were  too  much  for  George  IV,  and 
his  brother  the  Duke  of  York,  the  same  temptations 
worked  no  such  effect  on  the  other  ten  brothers  and 
sisters.  In  the  same  way  the  houses  of  Bourbon  and 
Romanoff,  which  have  given  us  the  greatest  number  of 
decided  degenerates,  also  show  strong  contrasts  to  this 
type,  and  furnish  a certain  proportion  in  each  generation 
who  are  entirely  free  from  the  taint. 

It  is  these  strong  contrasts,  more  than  anything  else, 
that  must  lead  us  to  the  conclusion  that  what  we  have  in 
Plate  2 is  truly  the  effect  of  blood  relationship,  for  en- 
vironment should  not  cause  this  distribution.  Spain, 
France,  and  Russia  give  us  most  of  the  degenerates.  In 


Correlations  and  Conclusions 


29 1 


these  countries  the  individuals  are  closely  associated  in 
blood  with  insanity,  epilepsy,  or  other  psychoses.  This 
is  itself  a coincidence  to  be  explained  by  those  who  doubt 
that  morality  is  much  the  result  of  inheritance. 

Besides  this,  we  have  to  remember  that  in  all  these 
families,  prior  to  the  appearance  of  the  moral  depravity 
and  mental  unbalance  as  well,  there  had  been  a period 
when  these  countries  were  relatively  free  from  the  de- 
generate type.  Why  did  the  three  heads  of  the  Romanoff 
dynasty  who  lived  before  Peter  the  Great  — in  whose 
generation  the  psychoses  first  appeared  — exhibit  such 
mild  and  amiable  characteristics,  although  arbitrary 
rulers  of  an  ignorant  people,  and  living  in  the  rudest 
epochs  ? Then,  suddenly,  contemporaneous  with  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  epilepsy  and  imbecility,  we  find  such 
examples  of  moral  depravity  as  the  Empress  Elizabeth. 
Strangely  among  the  degenerates  we  find  her  sister  Anne, 
“serious,  cultivated,  and  virtuous.”  Heredity  accounts 
for  this  by  saying  that  Elizabeth  took  from  the  weak  and 
unstable  side  of  the  family,  while  Anne  was  merely  a 
reincarnation  of  her  prudent  and  virtuous  grandmother, 
Natalia  Nariskin.  A similar  explanation  is  to  be  found 
over  and  over  again  wherever  these  strong  contrasts 
occur  among  children  of  the  same  parents. 

Some  might  contend  that  here  in  Russia  rude  condi- 
tions brought  out  strong  types,  both  good  and  bad;  but 
they  would  then  have  to  explain  why  in  Germany  (Saxe- 
Coburg,  etc.),  even  in  the  earliest  times  here  traced,  we 
find  practically  no  such  contrasts  in  character.  They 
would  also  have  to  explain  why  in  Spain  and  Italy  in 
recent  times,  we  also  find  a variation  in  moral  character 
exactly  like  that  found  in  Russia  in  the  early  eighteenth 


292  Heredity  in  Royalty 

or  in  Spain  in  the  sixteenth  centuries.  Thus  if  rude 
conditions  be  offered  as  a cause  of  the  contrasts  in  char- 
acter, it  will  not  fit  more  than  about  half  of  the  instances, 
while  inheritance  will  account  for  them  all.  When  strong 
contrasts  are  found  among  the  children , we  always  find 
strong  contrasts  among  the  ancestors. 

From  the  statistical  standpoint  I have  added  another 
method  of  attacking  this  same  problem.  We  might  ex- 
pect in  the  old  days,  when  the  standards  of  morality  were 
lax  and  manners  were  rough,  that  lawlessness  and  licen- 
tiousness would  be  found  in  a greater  percentage  than 
during  more  recent  times,  when  it  might  be  supposed 
unrestrained  conduct  would  not  be  tolerated.  In  order 
to  test  the  influence  of  the  different  epochs  on  the  forma- 
tion of  moral  character,  I have  made  a count  of  the 
different  grades  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  relative  to 
the  period  in  which  each  person  lived.  All  the  centuries, 
from  the  eleventh  onward,  I have  divided  into  three 
periods.  The  period  prior  to  the  year  1600  is  here  called 
“old;”  from  1600  to  1800  “middle;”  from  1800  onward, 
“recent.”  It  can  be  seen  on  the  chart  (Plate  3)  that  all 
the  different  grades  have  about  the  same  proportion  in 
each  age.  About  60  per  cent  are  in  the  “middle”  period, 
20  per  cent  in  the  “old,”  and  20  per  cent  in  the  “recent,” 
no  matter  what  grade  we  consider.  In  other  words,  we 
get  no  curves  at  all,  but  lines  almost  flat.  The  only  irregu- 
larities are  at  the  edges  — (1),  (2)  and  (9),  (10)  grades 
— and  merely  signify  that  here  the  instances  are  too  few 
to  make  them  group  themselves  in  perfect  harmony. 

Thus  we  see  that  as  far  as  these  600  odd  persons  are 
concerned,  the  change  in  public  opinion,  which  we  justly 
consider  has  taken  place  during  the  centuries,  and  which 


Correlations  and  Conclusions 


293 


we  might  expect  would  mollify  the  characters  and  control 
the  unrestrained  action  of  princes,  has  had  no  measurable 
effect  upon  them.  It  is  not  that  royalty  has  degenerated, 
but  rather  that  they  have  remained  about  the  same. 
There  have  been  royal  heroes  and  altruists  within  recent 
years,  and  these  existed  in  the  same  proportion  to  the 
whole  even  in  the  olden  times. 

I was  somewhat  surprised  that  the  recent  royalty  should 
not  give  a better  showing  than  the  more  ancient  members ; 


but  this  is  because  modern  royalty,  that  is,  from  1600  up 
to  1850,  has  such  a large  percentage  of  badly  selected 
Bourbon  blood  in  it.  If  we  took  royalty  as  it  exists  to- 
day, we  should  undoubtedly  find  a much  higher  one; 
but  this  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  most  of  the 
existing  members  are  derived  from  Saxe-Coburg  and 
other  excellent  German  families.  Up  to  1850,  France, 
Spain,  Portugal,  and  Italy  were  full  of  Bourbon  blood, 
and  we  have  seen  that  nineteenth  century  demands  or 
the  awful  example  of  predecessors  had  no  effect  on  it. 


294 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


The  conclusion  seems  to  be,  therefore,  that,  even  in  the 
moral  side  of  character,  inherited  tendencies  outweigh 
the  effects  of  surroundings,  for  the  reason  that,  applied  to 
all  the  characters,  heredity  is  able  to  explain  almost  every 
one,  — there  being  but  a slight  error  from  the  expected,  — 
while  environment  will  only  explain  a relatively  smaller 
number.  I think  we  can  conclude  from  this  that  in  each 
individual,  inheritance  plays,  in  the  formation  of  morality, 
a force  greater  than  50  per  cent.  Other  considerations 
enable  us  to  go  even  farther  than  this.  The  correlation 
coefficients,  as  found  on  pp.  282-3,  give  no  indication  that 
heredity  is  any  less  strong  for  moral  attributes  than  for 
mental.  The  comparison  between  maternal  and  paternal 
grandsires  is  significant.  Offspring  resemble  their  ma- 
ternal grandfathers  as  much  as  their  paternal.  Here  we 
test  the  resemblances  under  diverse  conditions  of  environ- 
ment, the  conditions  of  heredity  remaining  the  same,  yet 
we  find  no  weakening  of  the  latter  force.  Such  a result 
is  surprising,  for  it  does  seem  improbable  that  environ- 
ment has  no  influence  in  the  determination  of  tempera- 
ment, behavior,  and  virtue  in  general;  and  there  is,  of 
course,  an  ingrained  popular  belief  that  it  has. 

There  is,  perhaps,  some  scientific  evidence  indicative 
of  the  direct  effect  of  surroundings,  the  inherited  influ- 
ences remaining  the  same.  Among  plants  and  the  lower 
forms  of  animals,  especially  the  invertebrates,  many  ex- 
periments have  shown  the  remarkable  changes  which  may 
be  directly  induced  by  changes  in  the  outward  conditions 
of  life.  These  are  in  general  the  more  striking  the  lower 
we  go  in  the  scale  of  organic  evolution , so  that  it  may  well 
be  that  in  the  highest  attributes,  namely,  mental  and  moral, 
we  can  expect  the  least  results  from  outward  forces.  This 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  295 

hypothesis  may  prove  a veritable  generalization  through- 
out the  animal  series. 

Evidence,  such  as  it  is,  of  the  direct  effect  of  environ- 
ment upon  morality  is  not  wanting.  Under  such  a head 
come  the  accounts  more  or  less  authenticated  of  young 
children  carried  away  by  animals  into  the  jungles  of 
India,  living  to  grow  up  in  the  wild  state,  and  never  pos- 
sessing more  than  animal  instincts  themselves*  Again, 
charitable  institutions  for  the  young  can  furnish  figures 
which  seem  to  show  the  direct  effect  of  their  wise  admin- 
istrations in  reclaiming  the  children  from  the  slums;  but 
these  figures  never  give  us  a true  method  of  comparison 
between  what  the  results  are  and  what  they  should  be, 
as  expected  from  heredity  worked  out  by  higher  mathe- 
matical methods.  Many  of  these  children  may  have  been 
illegitimate,  and  the  sons  of  fathers  belonging  in  the 
middle  or  upper  classes.  We  must  first  know  how  many 
are  of  this  sort.  Then  there  are  other  sources  of  error. 
If  a certain  percentage  are  lost  sight  of  before  they  com- 
plete their  lives,  we  do  not  know  whether  these  go  to  the 
bad  or  not.  Presumably  they  do  if  they  cannot  be  traced; 
but  we  do  not  know  just  what  proportion,  and  we  need 
to  know  all  these  facts  accurately.  All  I can  say  is,  that 
I have  made  several  tests  to  find  a measurable  influence 
of  environment  apart  from  inheritance,  and  have  failed  to 
find  it  in  this  research. 

We  have  yet  another  reason  for  feeling  skeptical  about 
the  much  vaunted  influence  of  surroundings.  The  argu- 
ment which  I am  about  to  adduce  is  drawn  from  consid- 
eration of  this  immediate  question  in  connection  with  an- 
other question,  namely,  “the  inheritance  of  acquired 

* Ripley,  “Racial  Geography  of  Europe.” 


296 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


characteristics.”  Whether  characteristics  acquired  from 
the  influence  of  the  environment  are  inherited  or  not,  no 
one  pretends  that  they  are  so  inherited  more  than  in  a 
very  slight  degree.  Hence,  if  all  the  variations  which  we 
have  observed  among  children  of  the  same  parents  are 
due,  not  to  differences  in  the  germ-cells  (the  writer 
claims  they  are  due  to  differences  in  the  germ-cells),  but 
are  principally  the  result  of  surroundings,  as  is  assumed 
by  some  psychologists  and  educators,  then  these  differ- 
ences observed  among  children  of  the  same  parents 
should  not  be  clearly  manifest  in  the  various  branches 
which  subsequently  arise  from  these  children  who  vary 
much  one  from  another.  To  make  this  matter  clearer, 
it  has  been  shown  throughout  the  book  that  selection 
appears  to  be  of  the  most  vital  importance.  It  was  only 
the  great  names  among  the  Montmorencys  who  were  the 
ancestors  of  the  greatest  of  the  Condes.  In  the  house  of 
Hanover  we  find  in  the  children  of  George  I,  a son, 
George  IIt8],  of  inferior  qualities,  and  a daughter,  So- 
phia[9],  of  very  superior  qualities.  The  immediate  de- 
scendants of  George  II[8]  remained  mediocre,  while  those 
of  his  sister  Sophia[9]  (Frederick  the  Great,  etc.)  were, 
some  of  them,  in  the  highest  grade.  The  Hapsburg 
“lip,”  the  Bourbon  insanity,  and,  in  fact,  every  marked 
trait  or  strong  deviation,  has  been  shown  to  be  trans- 
mitted in  accordance  with  selection. 

This  all  holds  together  in  a perfect  way,  if  we  consider 
that  the  strong  variations  were  themselves  congenital 
( i.e .,  preformed  in  the  earliest  embryonic  stages),  and  not 
subsequently  determined  by  effects  from  the  environ- 
ment. The  only  other  way  accounting  for  the  fact  that 
variations  among  the  children  of  the  same  parents  sub- 


Correlations  and  Conclusions 


297 


sequently  breed  true  in  the  different  stems  which  arise 
from  these  children,  is  to  assume  that  acquired  charac- 
teristics are  strongly  inherited.  As  no  one  supposes  that 
mental  traits  acquired  from  the  environment  are  strongly 
inherited,  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  original 
variations  themselves  are  not  acquired  from  the  environ- 
ment, but  congenital.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  envi- 
ronment has  an  exceedingly  important  effect  upon  the 
individual,  although  not  greatly  inherited.  These  two 
views,  if  coupled,  will  not  hold  together  and  explain  the 
facts.  If  we  renounce  the  inheritance  of  acquired  char- 
acteristics, and  at  the  same  time  consider  the  individual 
himself  to  be  almost  entirely  the  result  of  congenital 
causes,  these  two  views  will  hold  together  and  suffi- 
ciently explain  the  facts. 


In  the  lower  forms  of  animal  life  we  know  by  actual 
experimentation  that  slight  changes  in  the  environment 
occasion  the  greatest  differences  in  results;  still,  in  spite 
of  the  strange  modifications  that  may  be  occasioned  in 
the  developing  fish  or  frog  by  external  mechanical  or 
chemical  means,  the  question  resolves  itself  under  ordi- 
nary conditions  to  the  nature  of  the  primary  germ-cells. 
If  a naturalist  were  stocking  two  tanks,  one  for  fishes 
and  one  for  frogs,  and  had  eggs  of  both  to  use  for  that 
purpose,  the  first  practical  question  for  him  would  be: 
Which  are  the  eggs  of  fishes,  and  which  are  the  eggs  of 
frogs?  It  is  just  so  in  the  development  of  the  human 
mind.  As  far  as  the  practical  results  are  concerned,  the 


298 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


one  bit  of  knowledge,  the  possession  of  which  will  best 
enable  us  to  predict  the  fully  developed  adult,  is  an 
answer  to  the  same  sort  of  question  as  that  we  would 
first  wish  to  know  in  the  case  of  the  fishes  and  the  frogs. 
What  is  the  nature  of  the  primary  germ-cells?  Since 
for  obvious  reasons  we  cannot  know  this  nature,  the 
next  best  thing  to  know  is  its  theoretical  probabilities  as 
derived  from  a proper  study  of  the  ancestry. 

It  would  seem  from  the  facts  studied  in  the  foregoing 
chapters  that  the  probabilities  will  be  roughly  as  given 
below.  Quality  possessed  by  entire  ancestry  is  almost  sure 
to  appear.  Quality  possessed  by  one  parent  and  half  the 
ancestry  is  likely  to  appear  with  almost  equal  force , in  one 
out  of  every  two  descendants.  Quality  possessed  by  one 
parent  only , and  not  present  in  the  ancestry , has  one  chance 
in  about  four  for  its  appearance  in  the  progeny.  Quality 
not  possessed  by  either  parent , but  present  in  all  the  grand- 
parents and  most  of  the  remaining  ancestry,  would  also 
have  about  one  chance  in  two  for  its  appearance  in  one  of 
the  children.  If  only  one  of  the  grandparents  possessed 
the  quality  in  question , then  the  chances  of  its  appearance 
in  any  one  of  the  grandchildren  of  this  ancestor  would  be 
only  about  one  chance  in  sixteen.  It  would  be,  however, 
very  unlikely  that  some  of  the  remote  ancestry  had  not 
also  the  quality  in  question,  so  the  chances  would  be  raised 
in  a greater  or  less  degree  according  to  the  proportionate 
amount  of  this  remote  influence. 

The  above  estimates  for  the  characteristics  of  offspring 
are  in  accordance  with  Gabon’s  law  of  ancestral  heredity, 
except  that  provision  is  made  for  the  fact  that  mental  and 
moral  qualities  do  not  freely  blend,  so  that  a child  is  apt  to 
utake  after”  rather  completely  some  one  of  his  ancestors. 


Correlations  and  Conclusions 


299 


more  often  the  near  one , less  and  less  often  the  remote  one , 
until  the  chances  of  reversion  to  a very  distant  one  are 
exceedingly  slight. 

Once  in  a large  number  of-  times  occurs  one  of  those 
fortuitous  * combinations  of  ancestral  qualities  that  is 
destined  to  make  a person  inheriting  them  vary  much 
from  any  of  his  kin,  and  in  fortunate  instances  shine  as  a 
genius,  springing  from  a mediocre  stock.  The  figures 
drawn  from  Lehr’s  “Genealogy”  were  about  one  in  five 
hundred  for  this  sort  of  occurrence. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  consider  a popular  mis- 
conception concerning  the  value  of  hereditary  influence  — 
a mistake  very  frequently  made.  Many  people  argue 
that  great  geniuses,  coming  as  they  frequently  do  from 
humble  families,  Franklin  and  Lincoln  for  instance,  dis- 
count our  belief  in  mental  heredity;  when,  on  the  other 
hand,  these  men  should  only  strengthen  our  reliance  in 
this  same  force.  We  should  consider  the  thousands, 
indeed  millions,  of  mediocrities,  who  have  to  be  born 
from  mediocrities,  before  one  mind  of  the  type  of  Frank- 
lin’s is  produced.  That  they  rise  superior  to  their  cir- 
cumstances is  in  itself  a proof  of  the  inborn  nature  of 
their  minds  and  characters.  A man  of  this  sort  repre- 
sents a combination  of  the  best  from  many  ancestors. 
It  would  be  possible  in  a great  many  throws  to  cast  a 
large  number  of  dice  so  that  they  would  all  fall  aces. 
But  here  in  certain  regions  of  royalty  as  among  the 
Montmorencys  and  Hohenzollerns  where  the  dice  are 

* It  is  to  be  remembered  that  when  we  speak  of  chance  as  a cause  of  the 
combinations  of  characteristics,  that  even  the  throwing  of  dice  or  pitching  of 
pennies  is  entirely  subject  to  the  laws  of  mathematics,  as  has  been  abundantly 
proved  by  experiments.  {Con}.  K.  Pearson,  “Chances  of  Death,”  etc.) 


300  Heredity  in  Royalty 

loaded,  such  a result  may  be  expected  in  a large  percen- 
tage of  throws. 

Intermarriage 

The  enervating  effect  of-  luxury  and  the  frequency  of 
intermarriages  are  the  two  causes  which,  to  the  popular 
mind,  are  considered  paramount  in  producing  such  de- 
generations as  are  notorious  in  certain  royal  families. 
The  first  of  these  two  theories  has  already  been  shown 
untenable;  the  second  must  share  a similar  fate.  It  is  not 
alone  among  degenerate  families  like  Spain  and  Portugal 
that  one  finds  wedlock  among  the  near  of  kin.  Such 
intermarriages  are  apparently  equally  common  in  fami- 
lies which  have  given  us  the  highest  mental  and  moral 
grades,  namely,  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,  Hohenzollern,  and 
Nassau-Dietz.  The  parents  of  Frederick  the  Great  and 
his  remarkable  brothers  and  sisters  were  own  cousins. 
The  great  Queen  Isabella  came  from  strongly  inbred  an- 
cestry, and  Ernest  the  Pious  is  many  times  in  the  pedi- 
gree of  the  excellent  house  of  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.  Fur- 
thermore, we  may  state  that  the  Romanoff  degeneracy 
and  Swedish  eccentricities  were  neither  caused  nor  per- 
petuated by  the  close  marriage  of  kin.  This  all  agrees 
with  the  generally  accepted  scientific  opinion,  though  not 
with  the  popular  notion* 

Royalty  and  Mankind  in  General 

In  closing  this  book,  it  is  worth  while  to  reiterate  the 
statement  I have  so  often  made,  — that  there  is  no  degen- 
eration in  modern  royalty  to  be  ascribed  to  their  excep- 
tional and  exalted  position  per  se,  that  degeneration  has 
only  occurred  in  certain  branches,  and  may  always  be 

* Con/.  Huth,  “Marriage  of  Near  Kin.”  8vo,  pp.  475.  London,  1887. 


Correlations  and  Conclusions 


3QI 


explained  by  pollution  of  the  blood  of  the  male  line 
through  marriage  with  a family  in  which  a degeneration 
was  then  existing,  or  some  constant  artificial  selection 
of  the  worst  types  rather  than  the  best.  While  some 
branches  were  deteriorating,  others  equally  blue-blooded 
(Prussia,  Saxe-Coburg-Gotha,  Nassau-Diet#,  Mecklen- 
burg, Denmark,  Austria,  and  Modern  Portugal)  were 
holding  their  own,  or  actually  rising  in  mental  and 
moral  tone. 

If  we  compare  the  eight  hundred  odd  persons  who 
form  the  main  body  of  this  study  with  the  world  in  gen- 
eral, we  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  relatively  large 
number  of  exceptional  geniuses  who  have  from  time  to 
time  appeared  in  their  genealogical  charts  and  have 
taken  their  places  as  actual  and  undisputed  leaders  in 
many  of  the  greatest  movements  in  European  history. 
Among  the  men  alone,  there  are  twenty-five  in  grades 
(9)  and  (10).  These  men  are  the  bearers  of  names  of 
unquestioned  distinction,  names  of  geniuses  who  stand 
without  superiors  in  the  practical  domains  of  war  and 
government.  Where  else  could  we  take  eight  hundred 
interrelated  names  at  random  and  find  twenty-five  world 
geniuses?  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  modern  royalty, 
as  a whole,  has  been  decidedly  superior  to  the  average 
European  in  capacity;  and  we  may  say  without  danger  of 
refutation,  that  the  royal  breed,  considered  as  a unit,  is 
superior  to  any  other  one  family,  be  it  that  of  noble  or 
commoner. 

This  is  all  to  be  expected.  Men  of  ambition  seek 
power.  In  the  generations  long  ago,  soon  after  the  down- 
fall of  Rome,  in  the  age  when  modern  royalty  was  form- 
ing into  a distinct  class,  the  natural  leaders,  the  strongest, 


302 


Heredity  in  Royalty 


came  to  the  front  and  made  themselves  kings.  They 
married  only  among  their  own  kind.  They  waged  wars 
one  with  another,  leading  to  a survival  of  the  fittest;  and 
all  along  down  the  line  their  exclusive  ranks  were  re- 
cruited with  fresh  grafts,  always  in  the  nature  of  vigorous 
personalities  who  won  their  way  into  the  royal  fold.  The 
very  formation  of  royal  families  was  thus  a question  of 
selection  of  the  most  able  in  government  and  war.  From 
their  intermarriage  with  their  own  kind,  in  connection 
with  the  force  of  heredity,  we  find  an  explanation  of  their 
relative  superiority  over  the  masses  whom  they  governed 
and  a reason  why,  until  within  a century  or  so  at  the 
most,  great  men  continued  to  appear  among  their  ranks. 
Of  course,  without  an  artificial  selection  and  without 
fresh  grafts  from  outside,  royalty  must  slowly  regress 
towards  the  average  of  mankind;  and  it  does  seem,  judg- 
ing from  the  relative  absence  of  great  kings  during  the 
last  century,  as  if  this  condition  could  already  be  dis- 
cerned. 

The  greater  survival  of  the  morally  superior  and  the 
correlation  between  mental  and  moral  qualities,  disclosed 
in  the  former  chapter,  would, however,  always  tend  towards 
raising  their  average,  if  all  be  considered  as  a unit  and 
if  all  branches  of  descent  be  traced  out,  though  great 
and  exceptional  geniuses  might  be  less  frequently  ex- 
pected. 

To  the  minds  of  some,  a theory  of  the  preponderating 
influence  of  heredity  is  but  a gloomy  and  pessimistic 
outlook.  It  is  true  that  on  this  view  we  can  do  but  little 
for  the  individual  once  born  into  the  world,  and  are 


“ But  helpless  pieces  of  the  Game  He  plays 
Upon  this  chequer-board  of  Nights  and  Days.” 


Correlations  and  Conclusions  303 

And  yet  this  same  view  of  heredity,  when  looked  at  in 
its  bearings  on  the  future  condition  of  the  human  race  as 
a whole,  far  from  being  pessimistic,  is  on  the  contrary  an 
actual  basis  for  optimism;  for  we  have  found  among 
royal  families  the  morally  superior  surviving,  and  in  the 
inheritance  of  mental  and  moral  excellence  we  see  ground 
• for  a belief  in  the  necessary  progress  of  mankind. 


APPENDIX 


KEY  TO  THE  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

References  for  each  Individual 

The  numbers  in  square  brackets  refer  to  individuals  mentioned  in  the  text  or  charts.  The 
numbers  for  “ obscure  ” persons  are  omitted.  The  bold-face  numbers  refer  to  the  books  in- 
cluded in  the  bibliography  following.  Volumes  and  pages  are  indicated  by  Roman  numerals 
and  small  type  respectively. 


[1]  12  4 133  66  III 

169174  131 

[2]  12  7 62 1 42  66  m 

226  131 

[5]  4 66  hi  173  el  seq. 

123 

[8]  12  7 49  I 220  252 

263311320322412  134 

1 314  66  III  227 

[9]  4 XXXIV  684  5 60 

122  1 183  12524 

[10]  7 49  1 245  288  320 

403  132  1 3 75  1 3 

[11]  49  I 235  238  25 f 381 

408 

[12]  49  II  hi  112  ns  n6 
130  177 

[13]  49  I 244  130  177 

[14]  12  7 491 

[15]  7 130  128 

[16]  181I170187  132I52 

[18]  12  7 49  11  62 1 2 
7 75  II  44 

[19]  49  11  406  75  I 419 

128  hi  75 

[20]  62  11  380  1 28  III  24 

75  55  1 198  204  49 

[21]  7 128  m no  7511 

2 

[22]  7 62  1 389  132  33 
I 26  44  V 60 

[23]  12  7 49  II  85  87 

55  H 34° 

[24]  7 49  11  117  55  11 

113  141  145 

[25]  7 49  H 144  149  150 

56 

[26]  7 49  11 142 

[27]  12  55  II  l8s  191  223 

228  34O 

[28]  7 49  11 142  55 

[29]  7 55  1 276  280 

[30]  7 55  11 247  249  286 

[32]  7 55  II  327  etc. 

[33]  7 and  Lord  Malmesbury 


[35]  7 55  II  3°5  306 

[36]  7 55 

[37]  12  82a 

[42]  4 and  Schultes  “Ehren- 
denkmal  Ernst  Fried” 

[43]  4 86  a III  336 

[47]  5 4 

[48]  4 

[54]  4 5 

[55]  4 

[56]  82  7 

[57]  12  9 article  “ Belgium” 
55  H 31 

[58]  12  7 4 

[S9l  12  7 

[60]  12  4 IOO 
[62]  4 IOO 

[64]  4 
[68]  4 

L72]  4 IOO 

[73]  4 281358381  100 
104 
[75]  4 

[78]  49  II  68  128  132 

I 16  75  I 6 

[80]  124  28 

[81]  4 

[82]  4 28 

[83]  4 28  I 431 

[84]  4 

[85]  and  [86]  4 mentioned  in 
article  on  [90] 

[90]  4 

[91]  4 28 1 383 

[93]  4 article  “Ernst  II  of 
Saxe-Gotha  ” 

[96]— [1 14]  86 

[115H172]  4 97a  III  57 
134  IV  r77  66  III 

200 

[173]  4 5 64a 

[174]  84  II  213 
[17s]  66  III  201 

[177]  4 66  III  240  242  262  I 
304 


[178]  4 66  III 
[180]  4 article  “Anton  Ul- 
rich” [177] 

[182]  66  in  244  245  262 

[185]  66  III  246  247  64  a 

II  190 

[186]  66  III  249  133  11 

302 

[187]  134  1 136  76  I 321 

64a  11 180 

[188]  84  II 212 

[190]  4 66  ill  250 

[191]  84  1607 

[192]  4 66  ill  262  263  265 
297  298 

[193]  5 91 317  44 

[194]  12  133  125  231 

232 

[19s]  4 134  66  III 

[196]  5 4 66  III  230  28r 

[197]  122  1 202  133 

[201]  33  1 230-233  9 ar- 

tide  “ Denmark* * 

[202]  12  4 5 134I  129 
66  in  298  309 

[204]  12  64 

[203]  12  4 5 122 1 327 

[206]  134  I 137  I 22  I 320 

[207]  122  1 311  317  323 
[210J  134  I rS3 

[212]  7 5 5 1 320  349 

[213]  66  III 

[214]  66  III 

[215]  55  l 326  66  III  343 

[216]  12466  III 

[217]  4 66  III  8 

[218]  4 123 

[219] 9  5 39  1 248  257 

[224]  12  4 13  9 5 

123  106  I 71 

[226]  9 123  254  106  I 

140 

[227]  12  4 106  I 470 

122  1 162 II 247  125 
77-91 


Key  to  Bibliography 


305 


[228]  12  4 60 

[229]  12  4 5 133  125 

208-272 

[230]  60 1 99  39 11 169 

[231]  133 1 91  122 1 334 

66  ill  261 

[233]  12  33 1 284-292  44 
IV 

[234]  12  133  1 136  122 
I 197-200 

[235]  12  1331253  122 
I 280 

[236]  12  4 133 1 209  249 

[237]  133  1221255 

[238]  9 134  122  1 203 

58  6 

[239]  134  1 I25  4 7 111  440 

[241]  13  4 71  II  4i 

[242]  12  4 
[244]  9 12  58 

[249]  9 7111310  12 

[250]  4 58 

[251]  Grim  “Alexandra  Feo- 
drowna”  s VII  (vorwort) 
ib.  I 225 

[256]  110  “Life  of  Emp. 
Frederick”  trans.  from 
M.  von  Poschinger  N.Y. 
1901 

[257]  4 65  6 

[258]  65  96  12  5 104 

[259]  104  I 272  95  III 

119  IV  275  65  109 

[260]  104  II  66  95  III  4 

98  1 18  etc.  (see  index) 

[267]  95  1 T4  IS  360 

[269]  12  5 9497  95 

III  97-103  275-276 

[270]  65  249  95  hi  455 

[271]  65  249  I 05  81 

[277]  12  5 94  135 

[278]  94  119-122  134  1 

124  47 11 693 

[279]  4 17  IV  cxi 

[280]  1 7 V xxv  320 

[281]  4 article  “John  Geo.  II 
of  Anhalt”  1 7 V 195 

[282]  17  V 195 

[283]  12  5 7 

[284]  4 

[285]  4 

[286]  4 
[291]  4 
[298]  4 
[299J  4 


[302]  4 94 

[310]  4 134  I 124  47 

III  420 

[312]  4 134  I 121 
[314]  5 Biog.  des  Contempo- 
raines  4 

[31s]  5 134  11 26 

[316]  5 

[317]  12  5 
[322]  12  5 14 
[324]  12  5 14 
[331]  12  5 64b 
[332J 12  5 

[335]  12  5 

[336]  12  5 64  b 
[341J 12  5 9 
[342]  12  13  9 
m 12  5 9 

[344]  9 5 

[34s]  12  9 1 13 

[347]  1 21  5 

[348]  121 1 211  126  327 

[350]  1 21 1 383 

[351]  9 5 64b 

1352]  1 21 

[355]  1 2 1 1 383 

[356]  121 1 383 

[359]  12  9 45 12 

[360]  12  9 55 

[360]  12  9 45 1 451 

[361]  45  37 

[362]  45  42 

1.364]  12  9 1 13 
[366]  n 

[368) 9  1211383 

[369]  1 2 1 1 387 

[371]  14  13 

[372]  12  5 

[374]  12  13  17a  ina 

L375]  13  Q2  73  249 

[376]  13  29  215-216  61 

III  91 

[377]  12  13  9 
[378J  12  9 7 

[379]  same  as  [374] 

[380]  92  1 21  1 13 

[381] 92  5 17a  365 

[382]  1 13 

[383]  P.  Jacoby  “Etudes” 
etc. 

[384]  1 21  I 129  132 

[385] 113  121I173 

[386]  73  43  51  V 113 

163-164  79  XIX  252- 

253  III  XII  451 


[387]  1 21  I 124  153  173 

[388]  12  5 1 2 1 

[389]  26  chap.  VII  P.  Ja- 

coby “Etudes”  etc. 

[390]  12  1 21  II  397 

I I2a  335  Jour.  dull. 
d’Argenson  par  A.  Brette 
Paris  1808  July  25  1753 

[391]  5 112a  317  129a  II 

485 

[392]  5 

[393]  Journal  de  Barbier 
Paris  1851  III  180 

[394]  5 112a  64b 

[395]  12  5 77  III  470 

[396]  12  5 9 19  . 

[397]  12  9 19 

[398]  5 “I.’Eloge  hist,  de  la 
servante  de  Dieu  M.  C. 
A.  reine  de  Sardinia” 

[399]  5 Parisot  “Vie  de 

Madame  Elizabeth  de 

France.” 

[400]  40  64b 

[401]  52  II  247 

[403]  12  1 21  I 127  207 

208  77  III  364 

[405]  25  I 209  99  17  I 21 
I 134 

[406]  1 1 3 I 2 1 I 209  85 

[407]  1 21  I 209  25  I 354 

[408]  I 2 I I 209  370  384  99 
70  II 

[409]  43  III  57  86  1 2 1 

50  II  287  51  21 

99  19 

[410]  21  178  25  II  352 

[411]  121  I387  405415  92 
XVI 315  1 1 d’Argenson 
quoted  in  D.  Bingham 
“Marriages  of  the  Bour- 
bons” 1890  II  442 

[412]  121  II  53  92  XVI 

315  129a  II  97 

[414)  12  1 21  19  VI  406 

5 

[415]  136291  121  Mems. 
de  Montpensier 

[417]  136  82  36 

[419]  136  131  82 

[421]  12  136  189 

[422]  136  82  37 

[423]  136312  E.H.Stroble 
“Spanish  Rev.”  92  143 


3°6 


Appendix 


[424H509]  12  36  79 

51  hi  64  115 

9 87 

tsio]  12  42  9 

[511]  96  1 56  102  hi 

256-7 

[512]  12  42 

[513]  5 

[514]  12  42  13546  96 
1 58 117  109 

[515]  12  42  9 

[516]  4 961 150 

[517]  87  hi  157-160  1 19 

238 

[518]  12  51  V 86  79  XV 

hi  212  94  9 50  96 

103  47  II  328 

[519]  42  II  336 

[520]  78  V 76  1 03  I hi 

[521]  9 103  I 394  96 

I 04  I 1 12 

[522]  12  9 104  II  164 

[523]  12  96  103 
[5241103  95  hi  558 

[526]  12  52 1 1 73  74 

156  51  V 89-91 

[527]  5 107  121  17a 

14 

[528151V  99  III  XI  270 

74156  53 
[529!  42 

[530]  53 

[531]  73  53  I 367 

[532]  53  I 378 
[533117a  ma  58  74 

158 

[534]  42 

[535]  12  73  51  135 

6ll 

[536]  73  14  43  IV  217 

79  XIX  378 

[537]  12  14  73  43 IV 

301  III  XIII  202-208 

[538]  59  174 

[339]  43  111  386  5 21  340 
[540]  5 21  393 
[543]  133  n 
[544I  134  I !7i 

[545]  1 21  11  252  19  111 

10  41  11  305 

[546]  12  134  I 1 70-1 73 

9896  80a  60 

f549l  31  I 58  2 7 III  21 


[551I  70  I 241  9 19 

129  I 383  27  III  19 

8l  101 

[552I  70  III  373  IV  124  8l 
223  27  III  19  13 

[554]  73  391  7°  I 373 
Csss]  9 81  277-278 
[356]  136  303  315  and 
“Attache  in  Madrid”  142 
[557]  42  v 395 
[538]  5 98  18  32 
[559I  12  9 I 9 III  2 

[560I  16  and  Drei  Frauen 
Kaisers  Franz 

[361]  98  96  41 11 473  5 
[5631 81 151  1 21 
[564]  37  232  70 1 244 

[566]  41 11 302 

[567]  13  129 11 3 27 

hi  21  81  270 

[568181  12111333  129 

1 382 

[569]  10  9 41 11 481 

80a 

[379]  8l  344  343 

[380]  72  510  8l  344-346 

356 

[583]  12  42II  228  332  9 

[585]  l6  83  262 

[586]  124  I 216 

[589]  16 

[592]  16  88  II 278 

[393]  16 

[594]  103  III  475 

[595]  12  42  11  344  380 

95  III  279 

[596]  1295  in  320  1 03 
74153  135419 

[597]  42  II  337 

[598]  12  9 96  III  518 

42 

[599]  42  II  338  433  444 

[600]  135  542  42  II  341 

95  HI  337  338 

[601]  42  II  337 

[603I  12  42  II  448  III  188 
83  264 
[606I  16 

[607]  16  88 
[609]  16 
[61c]  16 

[6nl  12  42  III  225  83 

266 

[614]  42  III  190 

[615]  43  I 17  51  V 104 


[616]  12  42  III  479  9 

133 

[619]  42  IV  i 117  etc.  133 
83  342 

[620]  42  III  488 

[621142111189  59  II  158 
[622]  133  42  IV 

[624]  133  II  183  42 

[625]  42  133  II  J83 

[626]  9 8th  ed.  133  I 329 
etc.  42  V 278  83  381 

[627]  9 8th  ed.  133 

[628]  133 

[629]  1 33  II  440  460  462  464 

510  42  V 282  98  IO 

[6301  16  133  42  V 208 

32 

[631]  124 

[632]  133 

[633]  32215  16  Schlimmer 
“Maria  Theresia”  1854 
109 

[6341 12  133  n 447  504 

42 

[635]  12  41  n 201  9830 

[636]  42  ed.  1820  V 279 

[637]  16 

[638]  12  9 5 
[640]  12  9 96a  4 
[641I  9 5 41  1 432  120 

i°5 

[643]  12  9 4 5 
[644I  42  continuation  124 
[645]  41  I 232  418  432  433 
[646I  16  124 

[647]  42  (cont.)  xliii  lxviii 
96a  4 216340  1 24  II 

410  16 

[648]  96a  27  42  124 

[649]  16  124  42 

[650]  124  II  374  16 

[651]  9 120  99  98  149  5 

[652]  96a  163  98  42 

(cont.)  Ixi 

[653!  5 article  “Pierre” 

(Brazil) 

[656]  96  a 225  IOI 
[657ll2  51  III  178  78 

II  49 

[658I  12  9 78  87 1 238 

51  HI  l82-l87 
[662]  12  78  II  165  87  1 

27S  297  51  HI  i89 

[664]  78  II  140  87  I 232 

[665]  64  210 


Key  to  Bibliography 


307 


[666]  78  II  169  87  I 321 

[667]  87  I 357  78  II  175 

193  51  111  1 9°-i  93 

[672]  51  III  194  II978 

[673]  12  9 87  I 453  474 

[67s]  12  9 87  II  is 

[682]  9 51  III  213  87  II 
198 

[683]  9 51  II  207 

[684]  51  III  214-218  119 

99-100 

[685]  9 87H211  51  III 

2l8 

[688]  12  9 42  I 395  87 

II  370  51  III  244-245 

[689]  12  9 51  III  247 

256  87 

[690]  12  9 87  II  381 

119 

[691]  12  9 51  III  246- 

247 

[693]  87  II  384  51  HI  257 

59 

[694]  9 87 11 384  51  III 
255 

[69519  II9I3S  51  HI 

275 

[697]  42  I 383  386 

[699]  1 1 9 165 

[700]  12  9 51  III  295 

42  1 395 

[701]  78 

[703]  9 s i III  323  87 

[704]  9 87  III  109  119 

[705]  I 03  I 30  33 

[706]  59 

[707]  78 

[709]  87  in  157 159  160 

[711]  9 53  1 236  51  v 

240-244 

[712]  1 87  m 468 

[713]  51  v 244  247  50 

1 26  94 

[714]  9 51  87  hi  441 

468  470 

[715151  87  hi  489  5 


[720]  51  V 165  43  Fitz- 

gerald“ Kings  of  Europe” 
L.  1870  299 

[721]  51  119354 

[722]  95  1 19 

[723]  9 5 51  5° 

[726]  59  176 

[727]  5 

[72811291138  27  m 23 

[729]  70  I 309  27  III  21 

81  151 

[730]  5 3i 

[73’]  7°  I 3°9  27  III  21 

23  8l  l6o  21 I 72 
269 

[732131  17b  33 

[733]  59  236 

[734]  9 5 

[737]  15  1 01  18 

[738]  5 15 

[739]  1 01  226  2 

[742]  9 44  76 

[743]  44  76  9 
[745112  44  1 05  a I 396 

34  1 23  23 

[748]  12  44  23  26  76 

I 227  230 

[749]  76  1 156  44 

[751]  12  44  761  226  232 
[753]  12  44  127  105a 

II  22 

[755]  23  179  9 

[756]  23  177-180  200  129 

[758]  76  I 422  424  105a 

II  154  91 

[759]  44  76  II  25  26 
[760H763]  44  V 20 

[764]  76  I 320  35  100  107 
127  560-598 

[765]  44  II  346  371 

[766]  76  I 424  449  12  44 
105a  II  173 

[767]  23  118  122  144 

[768]  12  18  II  29  24  84- 
85 

[771]  12  6 44  18 

[776]  1 8 II 106  44  129b 

l6  19  90 

[777]  18 11 131  80  44  46 


[781]  9 article  “Anne”  7 

[782]  5 Voltaire  “Charles 
XII”  10833 

[783] I2  52  III  282  18 

II  148  149 

[786]  5 52  III  283  12 

i 8 II  169 

[788]  18  n 170 174 187  33 

I II  132 

[790]  33  1 307  24  399 

[792]  18  132  12 

[794]  18  TI  204  33  I 243 

24  413 

[795!  129b  25  33  I 109 

269271  132  I 288  18 
II  296 

[796I  6 24  408 

[797]  6 

[799I  9 18  11 297  129b 
28  24  419 

[803]  24  420  12  9b  32 

[804]  12  631 144  44  9 

[805]  12  63  I 14s  158  9 

44  134  I 182 

[806]  63  I 146  44  IV  247 

24  132-3 

[807]  44  V in  24  115 

[808]  9 44  V 175 

[810]  63  I 140  Galton 
“Hereditary  Genius” 
1892  152 

[811]  44  IV  251 

[812]  9 63 1 189  44  V 174 

[813]  4 article  “Johann  Casi- 
mir”  63  (Gotha  ’55)  IV  4 

[814]  12  9 44  IV  31 

[817]  12  9 63  I 324  148 

[818]  9 44  IV  34  5 
[823]  12  44  IV  38  9 
[824112  44  iv  40  331 

277  283 
[825I  5 

[827]  33  I 3°  286  292  122 
I 319  24  353 

[828]  12  33  24  380 

[829]  8 33  I 322  318  5 

[830]  33 

[831]  33  1 322  II 24 

[832]  12  5 24  38s 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Everything  pertinent  within  these  volumes  has  been  utilized,  as  is  indicated 
by  the  key  to  the  bibliography. 


L.  = London.  P.  = Paris. 


Genealogies 

1 Behr,  K.  von.  Genealogie  der 
in  Europa  regierenden  Fiirsten- 
hauser.  Leipzig.  1870. 

2 Betham,  Sir  W.  Sovereigns  of 
the  World.  L.  1795. 

3 Lehr,  Paul  Ernst.  Etudes  sur 
Phistoire  et  la  genealogie  de 
quelques  une  des  principales  mai- 
sons  souveraines  de  l’Europe.  2 
vols.  P.  1 866. 

Dictionaries 

4 Allgemeine  deutsche  Biographie. 
45  vols. 

5 Biographie  Universelle.  85  vols. 

6 Dansk  biografish  Lexikon,  tillige 
omfattende  Norge  for  Tidsrummet, 

1 537— 1 81: 4.  18  vols. 

7 Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 

58  vols. 

8 Dictionnaire  universel  du  xix 
Siecle. 

9 Encyclopaedia  Britannica.  9th 
ed.  N.  Y.  and  Phila. 

10  La  grande  encyclopedic.  31  vols. 

11  Le  Bas,  P.  Diet.  Encyclopedique. 

12  t.  P.  1847,  ’4°~’55  (L’univers. 
Hist,  et  discrip,  de  tous  les  peu- 
ples  Europe). 

11a  Der  grosse  osterreichische  Haus- 
schatz.  Wien,  1856,  etc. 

12  Lippincott's  Biographical  Diction- 
ary by  J.  Thomas  (Universal  Pro- 
nouncing Dictionary  of  Biogra- 
phy and  Mythology).  Phil.  1892. 

3°8 


13  Nouvelle  biographie  Univers.  46 

14  Rose’s  Biographical  Dictionary. 

15  Vapereau,  Diet.  Univers.  des 
Contemporains,  etc. 

16  Wurzbach,  Biographisches  Lexi- 
kon. Wien,  1856-91.  60  vols. 

Archives 

17  Archives  correspondance  de  la 
maison  d’Orange.  2d  ser.  vols. 
iv,  v. 

Histories  and  Court  Memoirs 

17a  Abbot,  J.  S.  Hist,  of  Louis 
XIV.  N.  Y.  1870. 

17b  Alexander,  J.  S.  Sketches  in 
Portugal.  L.  1835. 

18  Allen,  C.  F.  Hist,  de  Dannemark. 

2 vols.  Copenhague.  1878. 

19  Alison,  A.  Hist,  of  Europe.  8 
vols.  N.  Y.  1859-60. 

20  d’Argenson,  R.  L.  La  France  au 
milieu  du  xviii  siecle. 

21  Armstrong,  E.  Elizabeth  Farnese. 
L.  1892. 

22  Bain,  R.  N.  The  Daughter  of 
Peter  the  Great.  Westminster. 
1899. 

23  Bain,  R.  N.  Pupils  of  Peter  the 
Great.  Westminster.  1897. 

24  Bain,  R.  N.  Scandinavia,  Hist,  of 
Denmark,  Norway,  and  Sweden. 
Camb.  1905. 

25  de  Barthelemy,  E.  Les  filles  du 
Regent.  2 vols.  P.  1874. 


Bibliography 


309 


26  de  Barthelemy,  E.  Mesdames  de 
France.  P.  1870. 

27  Baumgarten,  Geschichte  Spaniens. 
3 vols.  Leip.  1871. 

28  Beck,  A.  Gesch.  des  gothaischen 
Landes.  Gotha.  1868. 

29  de  Belgiojoso,  C.  T.  Hist,  de  la 
maison  de  Savoie.  P.  i860. 

30  Blaze,  M.  P.  R.  Mems.  of  the 
Princess  Palatine  of  Bohemia,  etc. 
L.  1853. 

31  Bollaert,  W.  Wars  of  Portugal 
and  Spain.  2 vols.  1870. 

32  Bright,  J.  F.  Maria  Theresia.  L. 
1897. 

33  Brown,  J.  The  Northern  Courts. 
2 vols.  L.  1818. 

34  Browning,  O.  Life  of  Peter  the 
Great.  L 1898. 

35  Bruce,  P.  H.  Memoirs  (Russian). 
L.  1782. 

36  Burke,  U.  R.  Hist,  of  Spain.  2 
vols.  L.  1895. 

37  Busk,  M.  M.  Spain  and  Portu- 
gal. L.  1833. 

38  Capefigue.  Hist,  de  Philippe  d’ 
Orleans,  Regent.  2 vols.  1838. 

39  Carlyle,  T.  Hist,  of  Friederich 
the  Second.  6 vols.  N.  Y.  1891. 

40  Castera,  J.  Catherine  II  trans. 
by  H.  Hunter.  L.  1800. 

41  Colletta,  P.  Hist,  of  the  King- 
dom of  Naples,  translation.  2 
vols.  L.  1858. 

42  Coxe,  W.  Hist,  of  the  House 
of  Austria,  several  editions  (in- 
dexed), also  continuation  by  W.  K. 
Kelley. 

43  Coxe,  W.  Mems.  of  the  Kings  of 
Spain  of  the  House  of  Bourbon. 
5 vols.  L.  1815. 

44  Coxe,  W.  Travels  in  Poland, 
Russia,  Sweden,  and  Denmark, 
several  editions  (indexed). 


45  Cretineau-Joly,  J.  Trois  derniers 
princes  de  Conde.  2 vols.  P. 
1867. 

46  Crull,J.  Mems.  of  Denmark.  L. 
1700. 

47  Davies,  C.  M.  Hist,  of  Holland 
and  the  Dutch.  3 vols.  L.  1851. 

48  Dolgorouky,  P.  Notice  sur  les 
principales  families  de  la  Russie. 
Berlin.  1858. 

49  Doran,  J.  Lives  of  the  Queens 
of  England  of  the  House  of  Han- 
over. 2 vols.  (L.  Redfield.)  First 
ed.  1855. 

50  Doran,  J.  Monarchs  Retired  from 
Business.  2 vols.  Phil.  1S90. 

51  [ Dunham,  S.  A.]  Hist,  of  Spain 
and  Portugal.  (Lardner’s  Cabinet 
Cyclop.)  5 vols.  L.  1832 -’33. 

52  [Dunham,  S.  A.]  Hist,  of  Den- 
mark, Sweden,  and  Norway.  (Lard- 
ner’s Cabinet  Cyclop.)  3 vols.  L. 
1839. 

53  Dunlop,  J.  Mems.  of  Spain  dur- 
ing Chas.  II  and  Philip  IV.  2 
vols.  (Indexed.) 

54  Fessler,  I.  A.  Gesch.  der  Ungern 
und  ihrer  Landassen. 

55  Fitzgerald,  P.  Family  of  George 
III.  1882. 

56  Fitzgerald,  P.  Life  and  Times  of 
William  IV.  2 vols.  L.  1884. 

57  Fitzgerald,  P.  The  Good  Queen 
Charlotte.  L.  1899. 

58  Forbes,  A.  William  of  Germany. 
N.  Y.  1888. 

59  Fonseca  Benevides,  J.  F.  Las 

Rainhas  de  Portugal.  2 vols.  1878. 

60  Frederica  Sophia.  Mems.  of 

Margravine  of  Bareith,  written  by 
herself,  translated  from  the  French. 

2 vols.  L.  1812. 

61  Gallenga,  A.  Hist,  of  Piedmont. 

3 vols.  L.  1855. 


3IQ 


Appendix 


62  Galt,  J.  Court  and  Family  of 
Gedrge  III.  L.  1824. 

62a  Gearey,  C.  Two  French  Queens. 
L.  1896. 

63  Geijer,  E.  G.  The  History  of  the 
Swedes,  translated  by  J.  A.  Tur- 
ner, Lond.  First  portion  compris- 
ing first  three  vols.  of  the  original 
from  the  earliest  period  to  the  ac- 
cession of  Charles  X.  (Continua- 
tion, see  French  or  German  edi- 
tions.) 

64  George  A.  Annals  of  the  Queens 
of  Spain.  N.  Y.  1850. 

64aGeorges,  W.  Vaterlandische 
Gesch.  Braunschweig.  1881. 

64b  Guizot,  F.  P.  G.  Hist,  of  France. 
Several  editions.  (See  index.) 

65  Harrison,  F.  William  the  Silent. 
L.  1897. 

66  von  Heinemann,  O.  Gesch.  v. 
Braunschweig  und  Hannover.  3 
vols.  Gotha.  1892. 

67  Hervev,  J.  Mems.  of  the  Reign 
of  Geo. ge  II.  2 vols.  L.  1838. 

68  Hodgkin,  R.  H.  Elizabeth  of 
Bohemia  (in  Five  Stuart  Prin- 
cesses). N.  Y.  1902. 

69  Holt,  E.  Public  and  Domestic 
Life  of  George  III.  2 vols.  L. 
1820. 

70  Hubbard,  N.  G.  Hist,  contempo- 
raine  de  l’Espagne.  6 vols.  P. 
1869-83. 

71  Hudson,  E.  H.  Life  and  Times 
of  Louisa,  Queen  of  Prussia.  2 
vols.  L.  1874. 

72  Hume,  M.  A.  S.  Modern  Spain, 
N.  Y.  1900. 

73  Hume,  M.  A.  S.  Spain,  its  Great- 
ness and  Decay.  2d  ed.  Camb. 
1899. 

74  Ireland,  W.  W.  The  Blot  upon 
the  Brain.  Edin.  1855. 


75  Jesse,  J.  H.  Mems.  of  the  Life 
and  Reign  of  George  III.  3 vols. 
L.  1867. 

76  Kelly,  W.  K.  Hist,  of  Russia.  2 
vols.  L.  1854-15. 

77  Kitchen,  G.  W.  Plist.  of  France. 
3 vols.  Ox.  1873-77. 

78  La  Clede.  Hist.  Gen.  de  Portugal. 
8 vols.  P.  1 735. 

79  Lafuente,  M.  Historia  Gen.  de 
Espagne.  30  vols.  Maderia,  1851, 
etc. 

80  Laing,  S.  Denmark  and  the 
Duchies.  L.  1852. 

8oaLatimer,  E.  W.  Italy  in  the 
Nineteenth  Century.  Chicago. 
1896. 

81  Latimer,  E.  W.  Spain  in  the 
Nineteenth  Century.  2d  ed.  Chi- 
cago, 1898. 

82  Latimer,  E.  W.  France  in  the 
Nineteenth  Century.  Chicago. 
1896. 

82a  Lee,  Sidney.  Queen  Victoria. 
N.  Y.  1903. 

83  Leger,  L.  Hist,  of  Austro-Hun- 
gary,  trans.  from  French  by  Mrs. 
Birkbeck  Hill.  Preface  by  E.  A. 
Freeman.  Lond.  1889. 

84  Leibrock.  Chronic  des  Fiirsten- 
thums  Blankenburg.  2 vols. 

85  de  Lescure.  Confessions  de  l’Ab- 
bess  de  Chelles.  1863. 

86  Limmer,  K.  A.  Kurze  Gesch. 
des  Hauses  Reuss.  Ronneburg. 
1829. 

86a  Limmer,  K.  A.  Urkundlich, 
etc.  Gesch.  der  Neu-Sachsischen 
Lande.  3 vols.  Grimma.  1845. 

87  McMurdo,  E.  Hist,  of  Portugal. 
3 vols.  L.  1889. 

88  Mailath,  J.  N.  Gesch.  des  os- 
treichischen  Kaiserstaates.  5 vols. 
1 834 -’50. 


Bibliography 


31 1 


89  Mallet,  P.  H.  Hist,  de  Danne- 
marc.  9 vols.  Geneve.  1788. 

go  Manley,  R.  Hist,  of  the  Wars 
in  Denmark.  L.  1670. 

91  Manstein,  C.  H.  v.  Mems.  of  Rus- 
sia. L.  1773. 

92  Martin,  H.  Hist,  de  France 
(unabridged  editions,  indexed). 

93  Masson,  C.  F.  Mems.  secrets 

sur  la  Russie.  P.  1863. 

g4  Maurier,  L.  A.  Lives  of  the 

Princes  of  Orange.  L.  1733. 

95  Motley,  J.  L.  Hist,  of  the  United 
Netherlands.  4 vols.  N.Y.  1868. 

96  Motley,  J.  L.  Rise  of  the  Dutch 
Republic.  3 vols.  N.  Y.  1856. 

96a  Muller,  W.  Political  Hist,  of 
Recent  Times,  with  appendix. 
Trans,  by  J.  P.  Peters.  N.  Y. 

97  Nugent,  T.  Hist,  of  Vandalia 
(Mecklenburg).  3 vols.  L.  1766. 

98  Orsi,  P.  Modem  Italy.  Trans. 
N.  Y.  1900. 

99  Peignot,  E.  G.  Precis  de  la 
maison  d’Orleans.  P.  1830. 

100  Philipps,  J.  T.  Hist,  of  the  Two 
Brothers,  etc.  Emestus  the  Pious. 
L.  1740. 

101  Politikos  [pseudonym].  Sover- 
eigns and  Courts  of  Europe.  1891. 

X02  Prescott,  W.  H.  Ferdinand 
and  Isabella.  3 vols.  Boston.  1857. 

103  Prescott,  W.  H.  Philip  the 
Second  (indexed). 

104  Putnam,  Ruth.  William  the 
Silent.  2 vols.  N.  Y.  1895. 

105  Rait,  R.  S.  Sophia,  Electress  of 
Hanover  (in  Five  Stuart  Prin- 
cesses). N.  Y.  1902. 

105a  Rambaud,  A.  Hist,  of  Russia. 
Trans,  by  L.  B.  Lang.  3 vols. 
Boston.  1886. 

106  von  Ranke,  L.  Mems.  of  Bran- 
denburg and  Hist,  of  Prussia.  3 
vols.  L.  1849. 


107  de  Retz,  J.  F.  P.  (Cardinal). 
Memoirs,  several  editions. 

108  Robinson.  J.  Account  of  Swe- 
den. L.  1717. 

109  Robertson,  W.  Charles  the 
Fifth,  with  Prescott’s  addition. 
3 vols.  Phil.  1875. 

no  Rodd,  R.  Frederick,  Crown 
Prince  and  Emperor.  N.  Y. 
1888. 

in  Rosseeuw-Saint-Hilaire,  E.  F. 
Hist.  d’Espagne.  14  vols.  P. 

1844-79- 

ma  Rothschild,  F.  Personal  Char- 
acteristics from  French  History. 
L.  1896. 

112  Ruehs,  C.F.  Geschichte  Schwe- 
dens.  5 vols.  Halle.  1805-14. 

112a  Saint-Amand  (Imbert),  A.  L. 
Les  femmes  de  la  cour  de  Louis 
XV. 

113  Saint-Simon.  Memoires  (in- 
dexed). 

1 14  Schaefer,  H.  Gesch.  von  Portu- 
gal. 4 vols.  Hamb.  1836-52. 

1 15  Schafer,  Lembke  und  Schirr- 
macher.  Gesehichte  Spaniens.  7 
vols. 

116  Schultes,  J.  A.  Coburgische  Lan- 
desgesch.  Sachsen.  2 vols.  Co- 
burg. 1814-22. 

117  Schnitzler,  J.  H.  Marie  Feo- 
dorovna.  Halle.  1865. 

1 18  Schnitzler,  J.  H.  Hist,  secrete 
de  la  Russie.  P.  1847. 

1 19  Stephens,  H.  M.  The  Story  of 
Portugal.  N.  Y.  1891. 

120  Stillman,  W.  J.  The  Union  of 
Italy.  Camb.  1898. 

121  Taylor,  W.  C.  Mems.  of  the 
House  of  Orleans.  3 vols.  1849. 

122  Thiebault,  D.  Souvenirs  de 
vignt  ans  a Berlin.  5 vols.  P. 
1826. 


Appendix 


311 

123  Tuttle,  H.  Hist,  of  Prussia. 
3 vols.  Boston.  1884. 

124  Vehse,  E.  Mems.  of  Austria. 
Trans,  by  F.  Demmler.  2 vols. 
L.  1856. 

125  Vehse,  E.  Mems.  of  Prussia. 
Trans,  by  F.  Demmier.  L. 
1854. 

126  Voltaire.  Siecle  de  Louis  XIV. 
P.  1854. 

127  Waliszewski,  K.  Pierre  le  Grand. 
P.  1897. 

128  Walpole,  H.  Jour,  of  the  Reign 
of  George  III.  2 vols. 

129  Walton,  W.  Revolutions  in 
Spain.  2 vols.  1837. 

129a  Watson.  Story  of  France.  2 
vols.  N.  Y.  and  L.  1899. 


129b  Weitemeyer,  H.,  Edit.  Den- 
mark, its  History,  etc.  L.  1891. 

130  Wharton,  G.  and  P.  Wits  and 
Beaux  of  Society.  N.  Y.  1861. 

131  Wilkins,  W.  H.  Love  of  an 
Uncrowned  Queen.  2 vols.  1900. 

132  Wraxall  (F.  C.),  L.  Caroline 
Matilda.  3 vols.  L.  1864. 

133  Wraxall,  N.  Court  of  Berlin, 
Vienna,  etc.  L.  1806. 

134  Wraxall,  N.  Historical  and  Post- 
humous Memoirs.  5 vols.  N.  Y. 
1884.  Other  editions,  see  index. 

135  Young,  A.  Hist,  of  the  Nether- 
lands. Boston.  1884. 

136  Yriarte,  C.  Les  Princes  d’Or- 
leans.  P.  1872. 


V. 


